From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <254278ff3375ec25d8a5db25a0d94270@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:58:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5d375e920802171343p323a2708m9f193ae24d2c14e5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 58142c36-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> so if you're running without the operating system or your application
>> is the operating system (embedded systems), virtual memory might
>> just get in the way.  tlb hardware doesn't do its translation for free.
>
> Or if you have moved onto the greener pastures of Limbo... not having
> to worry about all this saves many headaches when you want to port
> Inferno to a new arch too.
>
> uriel

the world isn't this simple.  just cause you've got the limbo hammer, doesn't
mean all the world's a nail.

porting limbo to a new architecture requires porting ken's toolchain
and the inferno kernel.  i don't see how a self-containted operating system/
application would be less work to port.

if the work you're doing is performance-sensitive enough that tlb misses
make a difference, then you certainly do not want to pay the penalty of
a virtual machine.

further, if the work you're doing is in the kernel or kernel-level, unless you
have hardware implemting dis, you can't write this in a language like limbo
which targets a virtual machine.

- erik