Re: [9fans] GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto
* Jens Staal wrote: > Personally, I believe that a Plan9 target for a cross compiler might > be more interesting. GCC already added support for the Plan9 dialect > of C. If it also could be made to compile Plan9 binaries, it could be > used for an alternative self-hosting distro as the one you envisaged. ACK. If, lets say, crosstool-NG could produce an GCC-alike (not necessarily GCC itself, but supporting the same command line interfaces) cross-toolchain for native Plan9 and p9p, that would be a *big* help. Perhaps even extend the autohell to support it. On the other hand, we could also port plan9's make to GNU natively. cu -- -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 -- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme --
Re: [9fans] GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto
* Charles Forsyth wrote: > >waserror() depends on callee-save. > > caller-save, and a few other conventions (or rather, no need for more > conventions). > specifically, it's enough to save the pc and stack. all variables will > have the right values on non-zero return from setjmp, regardless of the > presence or absence of "volatile", and that return can be done by > simply setting the pc and the stack pointer to the values in the jmp_buf. What exactly is different between these calling conventions ? How much does the Plan9 code depend on them ? cu -- -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 -- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme --
Re: [9fans] GNU/Linux/Plan 9 disto
> * Charles Forsyth wrote: > > >waserror() depends on callee-save. > > > > caller-save, and a few other conventions (or rather, no need for more > > conventions). > > specifically, it's enough to save the pc and stack. all variables will > > have the right values on non-zero return from setjmp, regardless of the > > presence or absence of "volatile", and that return can be done by > > simply setting the pc and the stack pointer to the values in the jmp_buf. > > What exactly is different between these calling conventions ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_convention > How much does the Plan9 code depend on them ? since you haven't specified a unit with which to measure this dependency, i'll give it as 1.773 µdirac/tatum·fortnight. alternatively, i've seen this specified as 6.773 Mlenat·emacs. (it just looks stupendous when you think of it that way.) in other words, it's not a deep dependency, but a pervasive and difficult to dislodge one. without the convention, waserror() becomes too subtile and quick to anger to be of any use to mortal programmers. - erik
Re: [9fans] files vs. directories
* Lucio De Re wrote: Hi, > If the cloud were to be a mere repository of (encrypted) Venti blocks, > wouldn't it be a very useful tool? Actually, I already had been doing some works in that area. Not actually venti, but a some bit similar object store, which supports some kind of distribute gc, etc. (yet just unfinished code fragments, didnt have the time to do anything useful yet). > In fact, how do we know that Al Qaeda are not already storing and > distributing all their plans for nuking New York on line as > steganographically encrypted Venti blocks on porno sites? They don't need to, Langley and DOD have enough datacenters around the world ... cu -- -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 -- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme --
