Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc

[Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]

i must say i don't see the point though.
in many ways, ?[acl] are attractive as a whole. (the
way it is done and the distribution of the work is part
of the point, although it's worth noting that the
arrangement isn't novel to it.)  going back to .s production seems a
retrograde step to me.  indeed, some thought so even
in the 1970s!  it's fairly typical of gnu to have
stuck with it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2900 bytes --]

From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:01:37 -0500
Message-ID: <d85a99557c123b033297cca3a93c4897@swtch.com>

> How hard would it be to teach kenc to generate .s files and use
> the system assembler/loader? Or are there calling convention
> issuees as well?

There are calling convention differences and you'd also
have to emit debug info, but this would probably not be
too bad an intermediate step.

Russ