On May 14, 8:43 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> That's also a myth. For example, if C is easy to maintain, why is > >>> Flaming Thunder the only single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross compiler in > >>> the world? There should be lots of single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross > >>> compilers written in C, if C is easier to maintain. > >>Not only is it the world's only "single-asset 8-by-8 shotgun cross > >>compiler," but according to google, it's also the world's only "shotgun > >>cross compiler" period. But I guess if you make up your own terminology > >>you're bound to be unique. :) Do you mind if I ask: what exactly is a > >>single-asset 8x8 shotgun cross compiler, and what makes that of any > >>value to me? > > > The web page explains. It's a compiler that runs on 8 platforms and can > > generate executables for any of them on any of them. It's not _totally_ > > clear about what "single-asset" means, but it gives the impression (and > > the term somewhat suggests) that this means there's a single executable > > that does all of this (compare to gcc's design, where support for cross > > compiling to another arch is provided by a separate executable). > > Which isn't too hard if all you have are simple datatypes as a handfull > numerical types + strings. > > Besides, from what I see, the supported platforms all are x86, 32bit & > 64bit. And I bet GCC works pretty unmodified amongst these as well - only > binary formats differ. But let Flaming Thunder grow a library system with > dynamic loading, and I wonder how well his crosscompiler works.. > > Diez- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
8x8 is pretty easy to aim for. Turn on 16x16, and you're the laptop to stand on. FxF? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list