On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 21:15:57 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 20:47:42 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 14:49:46 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Conditional execution is not in the later models of ARM, I
believe.
Also does not really provide advanta
On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 20:47:42 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 14:49:46 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Conditional execution is not in the later models of ARM, I
believe.
Also does not really provide advantages over conditional
jumps, except in rare circumstances.
That m
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 14:49:46 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Conditional execution is not in the later models of ARM, I
believe.
Also does not really provide advantages over conditional jumps,
except in rare circumstances.
That might be the case, maybe that's how they made space to
address th
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 01:05:04 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 22:16:35 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Can't you run it in qemu?
Probably I could, might even work parallel with other stuff,
especially stuff that are mainly lexical (register naming,
etc). So far I studied th
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 22:16:35 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Can't you run it in qemu?
Probably I could, might even work parallel with other stuff,
especially stuff that are mainly lexical (register naming, etc).
So far I studied the ARM assembly language, and it seems less
scary than the x86
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 18:05:32 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
I still don't have a hardware to test the compiler in the
future (will getting a RPi Zero and RPi 3 in the future as well
as other popular single board PCs to debug my own projects on
different targets).
Can't you run it in qemu
On Friday, 14 April 2017 at 13:29:35 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Here is my suggestion, try and document the backend.
You may form a very different opinion after trying to do that
or come up with a game plan on how to implement non-X86 targets.
As I see there's a lot of problem with the DLL
On 14/04/2017 2:22 PM, solidstate1991 wrote:
Since the backend is no longer restrained by Symantec licenses, there's
no reason why there should be only be x86 and amd64 CPU support even if
GDC and LDC already have their own implementations.
Here is my suggestion, try and document the backend.
Y
Since the backend is no longer restrained by Symantec licenses,
there's no reason why there should be only be x86 and amd64 CPU
support even if GDC and LDC already have their own
implementations.
I would help out after I either finish my college or get booted
out from there for failing to fin
