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 15:30:30 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Go/Inferno toolchain (Was: comment and newline in Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3a69e5a6-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I was sleep-deprived much of the week, so my memory is most likely not exact (so hopefully Russ will provide a clarification), but I believe he said something along the lines of pointing to the top of the stack as a workaround. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, so that's about as much of a hint as I can give at the moment. -eric On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Francisco J Ballesteros wr= ote: > 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 w= rote: >>> >>> 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). =A0Most 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. >> >> =A0 =A0-eric >> >> > >