On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM, kpedersen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There are a bunch of thorny issues to consider. > > Heh, I would imagine ;) > > I would not expect to support binaries from MSVC (even on Windows). After > all, Mingw and obviously Linux versions of vanilla GCC do not support them > due to things like name mangling. > > I would be extremely happy to just be able to compile multiple binaries > specific to the platforms I am targeting (as I currently do with native C++ > builds) but with the benefit of using the same .NET plugins (written in C#) > and all the functionality that .NET provides. > > So basically, as it stands I don't particularly see a need for /clr:safe or > a 100% .NET output because we already have C# for that. Platform specific > binaries would obviously be the aim so we can take advantage of OS specific > functionality anyway (such as sys/sockets in UNIX and DirectX in Windows) > > The AOT stuff does actually sound like a good idea. I didn't think of that. > Obviously we would need a way to parse out the code to generate it. > > As for someone doing it... How long in man hours do you predict it will > take? > No clue, probably months for someone that knows the mono runtime and LLVM.
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
