From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d190802171754k725b9696pdd7692590eaf731f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:54:47 +1100
From: "Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions
In-Reply-To: <254278ff3375ec25d8a5db25a0d94270@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5d375e920802171343p323a2708m9f193ae24d2c14e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<254278ff3375ec25d8a5db25a0d94270@quanstro.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 581a6330-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

how did this get past my erik filter?

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

four out of four as expected.

brucee

On Feb 18, 2008 10:58 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> >> 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
>
>