Hi David, Am 25.06.2013 um 10:39 schrieb David Chisnall:
> On 25 Jun 2013, at 03:21, "Lundberg, Johannes" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> This sounds exciting but what does it really mean, put Objective-C in the >> FreeBSD kernel? > > We plan on defining a slightly restricted subset of Objective-C (although I'm > not sure exactly what we'll choose to sacrifice - maybe not much), and a > runtime that better meets the constraints required for the kernel, then > modify clang and LanguageKit to emit code compatible with this ABI. > >> What is the goal? > > To investigate the costs of putting an introspective high-level language in > the kernel, which has traditionally been solely the domain of low-level > languages. We'd also like to explore bridging the Objective-C object model > with the ad-hoc C-based KObj object model that the rest of the kernel uses > and see whether it's possible to seamlessly integrate the two. There's a > reasonable amount of code in the kernel that is not CPU-bound. I'd also like > to explore using message sending at the language level as an alternative way > for userspace code to interact with the kernel. If it all works, I'd like to > be able to use something like the demo that I gave at FOSDEM to have an > environment where I can do live editing on Smalltalk code running in the > kernel. I find this interesting from a theoretical / structureal point of view, but why do you want to run any code in the kernel space? Do you expect a performance benefit or more security (I would expect less)? Or would any kernel component become easier to develop or test? BR, Nikolaus _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
