barger writes: > Excuse my inconvenience Bryce, but will be Exupery somedays able to compile > whole VM ?
It would be possible. But then you'd end up with a system like CMU Common Lisp. I'm not sure that would be more portable than our current system with Slang compiling to C. > I see that this is not the main direction of it now, but in near future it > can be huge help at least for SQUEAK NOS and also for Squeak 64 bit VM. > Maybe can be your work reused someway for slang ST to direct machine code > compilation... I think we've got a 64 bit VM now thank's to Ian and Dan's work. I haven't yet tried compiling it myself but mean to in the next few weeks. > What do you think about this idea ? It's interesting, it really depends on your goals. There's nothing that would stop you doing it. I'd probably try to write the interpreter in Smalltalk then statically compile it using Exupery into assembly then run the assembler through gas. The only reason to use gas is to avoid dealing with linker formats. For SqueakNOS compiling to machine code should be possible. But you'd have to rewrite all the C in the interpreter you need into Slang or preferably Smalltalk. So, you'd end up with the object memory written in Slang then as much of the interpreter as possible running as regularly compiled Smalltalk. There is a bit to think about to lift the interpreter up to "statically" compiled Smalltalk. But once it's done you should be able to recompile bits of it live to evolve it without needing to restart the image. I'd suggest waiting a bit more before starting to use Exupery for such a project. If enough people are interested in doing it it could be done. Bryce _______________________________________________ Exupery mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
