From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <87e08a731710ab0768f3af2faed0411a@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Wed,  9 Jul 2008 13:12:40 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <908ffff67002a2daaa46c0f1cb701a99@9srv.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] APE printf difference
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0ab6578-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> APE's export filter is very useful, and would be missed, but
> there's an equally valid import role that it isn't very good at
> serving, in modern contexts. I'd rather see that broken out
> into a distinct environment, say G(nu)APE.

Maybe a touch far-fetched, but could we not agree to use APE for
export and the GCC/G++ port for import?  Of course, mostly as a
principle and as focus, not as an obstacle.  If we accepted this as
the objective, more effort may go into making GCC/G++ viable.  I have
once again slipped back somewhat and I am not sure how easily I could
compute and submit the changes to the APE libraries and headers I
needed to apply to produce the GCC APE prerequisites.  It's on my TODO
list, but not a high priority.  Unfortunately, I need a clean
environment to reproduce the GCC port and that is pretty hard to
concoct for something that has few interested takers.

++L