From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:05:27 +0200 From: Lucio De Re To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20110404200527.GB2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20110403211333.GA3905@dinah> <20110403211652.GA5977@dinah> <20110403223031.GA27441@dinah> <20110404172728.GA2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Go Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c8544276-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:18:12PM +0300, Pavel Zholkover wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Lucio De Re wrot= e: > > PS: Would anybody like to summarise for us plebs whether there is any > > convergence looming between Go and Plan 9 on the x64 front? =A0It see= ms > > sad to miss a chance to add a peer-reviewed and thoroughly tested 64-= bit > > toolchain to Plan 9. >=20 > the basic runtime support (not the current syscall and os changes) > involved changes to 8l and some C and 386 specific assembly in > pkg/runtime. I guess this could be re-done for 6l + x64 code in > runtime. The question is whether it is a useful application of > developers time at this stage (it would be still cross-compiled) and > the 386 runtime has not been properly tested. >=20 I agree that focussing on x64 when there isn't a working target would be pointless, if intriguing. I guess the question then belongs in the Plan 9 camp: are we going to see an x64 Plan 9 development soon? and is the availability of the 6? chain in the Go sources helpful in arriving there? ++L