From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: paulzhol@gmail.com (Pavel Zholkover)
Date: Mon,  4 Apr 2011 22:18:12 +0300
Subject: [9fans] Go Plan 9
In-Reply-To: <20110404172728.GA2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <AANLkTik3gx8QK7O-+O=R8oFELTt6WgVHO3dJV51cZiPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=7L-mqU=mFODnGcYCmyvR02M=MLFzKPpH2v2B1@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110403211333.GA3905@dinah> <20110403211652.GA5977@dinah>
	<BANLkTimMZsyffBpswywUGcsso77mz_71kA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110403223031.GA27441@dinah>
	<BANLkTi=8HYNLhAA8_-PDPBvkAJ-DWN+HWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110404172728.GA2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimNF5+cAWsgQrNgbBOtGbgwpWbWKg@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c929769e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Lucio De Re <lucio at proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> PS: Would anybody like to summarise for us plebs whether there is any
> convergence looming between Go and Plan 9 on the x64 front? ?It seems
> sad to miss a chance to add a peer-reviewed and thoroughly tested 64-bit
> toolchain to Plan 9.

the basic runtime support (not the current syscall and os changes)
involved changes to 8l and some C and 386 specific assembly in
pkg/runtime. I guess this could be re-done for 6l + x64 code in
runtime. The question is whether it is a useful application of
developers time at this stage (it would be still cross-compiled) and
the 386 runtime has not been properly tested.

Pavel