On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Rodolphe Ortalo wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Andreas Beck wrote:
> > > > How about LDDK (http://www.llp.fu-berlin.de/pool/software/dutil/) for a
> > > > beginning?
> > >
> > > If the _L_ there means _L_inux, then please don't, except for maybe
> > > borrowing ideas.
> >
> > Yes. LDDK = Linux Driver Development Kit.
> >
> > > I want KGI/KGIcon to stay absolutely portable.
> >
> > Sure. I thought, to use the Driver Development Language (DDL) to write
> > KGI-drivers. I wanna say, modifying the DDL-Compiler to create KGI-drivers
> > instead of Linux-Drivers should be much less work than developing that system
> > from the beginning...
> > Maybe that some modifications on the DDL itself may be necessary, but as I
> > said - it is tiny work compared developing that from the beginning.
> >
> > That's why, I mentioned the LDDK project.
>
> I'll have a look at LDDK for ideas. But developping a "new" language is
> not such a huge task -- it's just very tricky to define a useful and
> well-defined language. (Do not misunderstand me: I'd like more a useful
> and dedicated preprocessor or C generator than a fully integrated
> driver-specific language that does everything from init to shutdown.)
The DDL-Compiler doesn't create any binary. No - the DDL-Compiler is
principally a translator from DDL to C.
A driver written in DDL, will be compiled in two steps:
DDL -> C (done by the DDL-compiler)
C -> binary module (done by the C-Compiler)
CU,
Christoph Egger
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
