On Dec 27, 2007 2:40 AM, Johann MacDonagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/27/07, Bruce Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Why is everyone so adamant about JIT compiling code? If you notice,
> > > Microsoft themselves tends to AOT compile assemblies (see SQL Server
> > > 2005 Manag
Well i couldn't tell you the specifics, since i don't know, but i do
know that the singularity project has a compiler (sing#) which *can*
AOT code that contains generics, so it *is* possible.
On Dec 27, 2007 8:41 AM, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Markham wrote:
> > B
Bruce Markham wrote:
> But methods with type-parameters can't be AOTed. They are left as IL
> with a native trampoline header that calls the JIT when the time comes.
I will just drop in our IRC chat right here:
And you *can't* AOT generics code.
good point
it _may_ be possible
if you loose th
> > When a dll is updated, it and all the applications that use it are
> > simply put back onto the queue...
> > There's no reason we couldn't have a similar mechanism (eventually)
> >
> Where you talking about linking all the assemblies statically into one
> binary file? That's the impression
On 12/27/07, Bruce Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Why is everyone so adamant about JIT compiling code? If you notice,
> > Microsoft themselves tends to AOT compile assemblies (see SQL Server
> > 2005 Manager). My original plan when I started this project was to AOT
> > everything. When
But methods with type-parameters can't be AOTed. They are left as IL with a
native trampoline header that calls the JIT when the time comes.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visua
Dennis Hayes wrote:
>
> FYI
> MS .NET 3.5 downloads IL and as part of the download/install
> process starts AOT compiling and caching .NET assemblies.
> I "discovered" this after downloading .NET 3.5 and notincing that
> some program was using 100% of the CPU time for a very lon
FYI
MS .NET 3.5 downloads IL and as part of the download/install process starts
AOT compiling and caching .NET assemblies.
I "discovered" this after downloading .NET 3.5 and notincing that some
program was using 100% of the CPU time for a very long time after the "install"
was done. I go
PCI configuration information is located by writing a UInt32 (a combination
of bus, slot, device sub-function, and the index of the UInt16 you want to
read from the config data), to port 0xCF8. And then the UInt16 that you
targeted can be read from port 0xCFC. Write parameters to one port, to read
Sander van Rossen wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007 6:25 AM, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sander van Rossen wrote:
>>
>>> Just to play the devils' advocate;
>>>
>>> If we do a full program optimalisation phase on each application
>>> that's installed on the system and
> Why is everyone so adamant about JIT compiling code? If you notice,
> Microsoft themselves tends to AOT compile assemblies (see SQL Server
> 2005 Manager). My original plan when I started this project was to AOT
> everything. When a user downloads a library / application, it comes in
> an IL asse
On Dec 27, 2007 6:25 AM, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sander van Rossen wrote:
> > Just to play the devils' advocate;
> >
> > If we do a full program optimalisation phase on each application
> > that's installed on the system and include system/corelib we could
> > possibl
On Dec 27, 2007 7:56 AM, Bruce Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That, my friend, is a really slick idea.
Well i can't take full credit for the idea since singularity does
something simular (on the language level, they have a modified version
of C#)
The idea to use properties like this is mine
That, my friend, is a really slick idea.
But I'm wondering...
I've been working with PCI. And PCI you use an out() to one port, and then
an in() from another, to read configuration data.
The parameters written to the first port determine from which PCI
configuration "registers" (and on which dev
On 12/26/07, Bruce Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
Why is everyone so adamant about JIT compiling code? If you notice,
Microsoft themselves tends to AOT compile assemblies (see SQL Server
2005 Manager). My original plan when I started this project was to AOT
everything. When a user dow
On Dec 27, 2007 7:31 AM, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you get the disk driver working? I wan't to try plug ext2 into the
> kernel.
Well that's the plan obviously ;)
I'm currently implementing a floppy controller driver, once that's
done we can start implementing all k
Can you get the disk driver working? I wan't to try plug ext2 into the
kernel.
--
Jonathan Dickinson
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Stu
I use vim for all my editing needs. However, if you're looking for an
IDE, you should really try MonoDevelop. The latest version (1.0 Beta
3) is simply fantastic. Not sure if there are packages for most
distros, but there was an ebuild for Gentoo.
Johann
On 12/26/07, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson <[E
What do you linux users use to edit c#? I used vim for ruby and it was a
liberating experience: i even have it on windows now.
--
Jonathan Dickinson
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Micros
>
> > Init's job is pretty simple. First, it sets up the stack and the
> heap
> > (stack grows downward in memory, heap upward). Next, it mounts the
> > root device as read-only, loads mscorlib into a special place in
> > memory, and then loads the kernel executable into another pla
Sander van Rossen wrote:
> Just to play the devils' advocate;
>
> If we do a full program optimalisation phase on each application
> that's installed on the system and include system/corelib we could
> possibly get a speed improvement compared to using them as a seperate
> lib.
>
Very interestin
Very good suggestions!!!
Bruce Markham wrote:
> Welcome back! I'm going to try to tackle this piece by piece. Because
> I don't think the rest of us have really understood your proposal, and
> I think my questions before went unanswered both due to your possible
> frustration, as well as an und
Welcome back! I'm going to try to tackle this piece by piece. Because I
don't think the rest of us have really understood your proposal, and I think
my questions before went unanswered both due to your possible frustration,
as well as an understandable preoccupation with the rest of your life. ;-)
If we do that, then the kernel itself cannot have any managed code,
because the class data from mscorlib (Object, Type, String, etc) must
be available for any meaningfully managed operations.
On Dec 26, 2007 2:22 AM, Johann MacDonagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all, I'm back for a little bit.
PS. good link ;)
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
Shar
Just to play the devils' advocate;
If we do a full program optimalisation phase on each application
that's installed on the system and include system/corelib we could
possibly get a speed improvement compared to using them as a seperate
lib.
All the functionality that's in system/corelib that wou
26 matches
Mail list logo
