From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F144B53.6070906@gmail.com> References: <4F144B53.6070906@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:40:30 +0000 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0d22064081804b6a7df06 Subject: Re: [9fans] assembly syntax in plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d3d4cca-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0ce0d22064081804b6a7df06 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Not really. One just implements them. For instance, there's no requirement for all function bodies to use the same scheme. The unusual bit is that you need to tell the loader what's going on, but there are still a few bits free for that. I haven't looked at the details here, but I've had to implement this before, for Ada, in a different environment, and don't remember it being too hard, compared to a big list of much harder things. On 16 January 2012 16:07, Joel C. Salomon wrote: > This would make it difficult to implement C99's variable-length > (actually, run-time-determined--length) arrays. > --000e0ce0d22064081804b6a7df06 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not really. One just implements them. For instance, there's no requirem= ent for all function bodies to use the same scheme.
The unusual bit is t= hat you need to tell the loader what's going on, but there are still a = few bits free for that.
I haven't looked at the details here, but I've had to implement thi= s before, for Ada, in a different environment,
and don't reme= mber it being too hard, compared to a big list of much harder things.

On 16 January 2012 16:07, Joel C. Salom= on <joelcsal= omon@gmail.com> wrote:
This would make it difficult to implement C99's variab= le-length
(actually, run-time-determined--length) arrays. =C2=A0

--000e0ce0d22064081804b6a7df06--