On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Adam Herout wrote: : For a particular project I am considering using Parrot on a custom : system based on Texas Instuments DSP processor - this class of systems : is described as weird rather than prehistoric. : I hope that Parrot might be the option for me in this project - and with : my minimal (understand "zero") cross-compiling experience, I still feel : that going without sh and the like would be easier for me and the idea : of just providing c89 functionality (and possibly a couple of more : functions) is very attractive.
In principle, cross-compile configuration is drop-dead easy. All you need is a database of what the probe program *would* have answered had you been able to run it on the other machine. (Getting someone to write that database entry for you is the tricky part.) You also have to be careful to separate architectural parameters from policy parameters. An architectural parameter says your integers are 32 bits. A policy parameter says you want to install the documentation in the /foo/bar/baz directory. Cross compilation has to nail down the architectural parameters while potentially deferring decisions on policy to a later installation step. An interesting question would be whether we can bootstrap a Parrot cross-compile database using autoconf's *data* without buying into the shellism of autoconf. Or give someone the tool to extract the data from the autoconf database themselves, so we don't have to ship it. Larry
