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 13:10:04 -0500 Message-ID: From: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [9fans] Go/Inferno toolchain (Was: comment and newline in Topicbox-Message-UUID: 393e32c2-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > 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). Most people were just waiting for Andrey :) 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. -eric