From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <464534aea8c7fffa248a1368c41acb55@proxima.alt.za> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:12:37 +0200 Message-ID: From: Francisco J Ballesteros To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Go/Inferno toolchain (Was: comment and newline in Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3956b91e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Anyone (Russ?) can repeat here aprox. what the workaround for b was, for those like me that didn't attend usenix? On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen wro= te: >> >> Is the porting process active? >> > > It seems to be an opportunistic concurrent activity (which is why I > tried to create a central repo so we'd get some benefit from the > sparse multiple activities). =C2=A0Most people were just waiting for Andr= ey > :) > > There is some stuff that Forysth/Jmk have been looking at to allow for > the segment registers, but Russ had suggested workaround at USENIX > that I don't think anyone has had time to try yet. > > So here's what my take on what needs to be done: > > a) Simple logistics (makefile/script transformations, Sape's branch > has some of this, what the right way to do this in order to be > integrated back into the mainline go tree is an open question) > b) support or workaround for the segment register stuff > c) runtime support > > People seem to be mostly getting hung up on (a), (b) is probably the > trickiest bit, and I think (c) is just a matter of sitting down and > getting it done. > > I wonder if one way of avoiding (a) is just to rig to cross-compile > from Linux/MacOSX to Plan 9 and get (b) and (c) done first then work > back to (a), just because it seems like it would be more satisfying. > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0-eric > >