On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:40:25PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> The asm version is inferior to the c version in terms of portability.
Ostensibly, yes.
But in general, writing "src64/arch/xxx.l" for a new architecture is
trivial compared to writing a C compiler :)
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp
Hi Tomas,
> > asm-pil32 is a project that would allow us to get rid of C-pil32
> > entirely.
>
> not sure it is a good idea. The asm version is inferior to the c
> version in terms of portability.
Yes, but I understand this as x86-32 code generation from the asm
sources, a kind of back-port fro
Hi Axel,
> asm-pil32 is a project that would allow us to get rid of C-pil32
> entirely.
not sure it is a good idea. The asm version is inferior to the c
version in terms of portability.
Cheers,
Tomas
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Hi Axel,
> I am not a Mac user, sorry. I'm mostly on Linux i386 and Windows i386,
> including legacy OS's (for work).
Ah, OK, I see. I thought so because you gave competent help ;-)
> However, I support the idea of focusing on asm-pil64 ports rather than
> C-pil32 extensions. And as we said ear
Hi Alex,
I am not a Mac user, sorry. I'm mostly on Linux i386 and Windows i386,
including legacy OS's (for work).
However, I support the idea of focusing on asm-pil64 ports rather than
C-pil32 extensions. And as we said earlier, asm-pil32 is a project that
would allow us to get rid of C-pil32 ent
Hi Axel,
instead that we struggle with extending pil32, I have another
suggestion:
You are a Mac user, aren't you? Couldn't we try together to get native
pil64 up and running on Darwin?
I remember that the development state was almost "ready" a long time
ago. There were just some problems remain
