On Jan 8, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Tim Newsham <tim.newsham@gmail.com> wrote:

> Any reason why they prefer to rewrite large portions of
> code to use gcc rather than making use of different toolchains
> for the L4 kernel and the plan9 subsystems? It seems like the
> latter would be a lot less effort and result in a system that was
> easier to track the original sources going forward.
But GCC is part of the holy trinity...
People are funny like that.
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:14 PM, YAMANASHI Takeshi
> <9.nashi@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I heard, the largest work in porting Plan 9 to L4 enviroment
> is rewriting Plan 9's C code base  to be compiled on gcc
> as L4 uses the compiler for its development.
>
> The developers of LP49 themselves could chime in, but here is the link
> to the project.
> You might be surprised how much of Plan 9 has been rewritten in LP49.
>
> http://research.nii.ac.jp/H2O/LP49/LP49-e.html
> --
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:48 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Recently found a paper (again) documenting some work going on here.
> > I've lately sort of had a resurrected interest in OKL4, and I'm
> always
> > interested in Plan 9 stuff, so I was wondering what's happened
> here or if
> > there's any code to show for it.
> > It seems like an effort that would take more than one person, but
> I'm
> > spending some of my spare time investigating L4 a little more in
> depth than
> > I had previously, and trying to understand what it would take to
> port Plan 9
> > to this platform.
> > I'm not announcing this as a project at this point, as I don't
> know what the
> > heck kind of time I'm going to have.
> > Dave
>
>
>
> --
> YAMANASHI Takeshi
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com
>