Any reason why they prefer to rewrite large portions of
code to use gcc rather than making use of different toolchains
for the L4 kernel and the plan9 subsystems? It seems like the
latter would be a lot less effort and result in a system that was
easier to track the original sources going forward.
Any reason why they prefer to rewrite large portions of
code to use gcc rather than making use of different toolchains
for the L4 kernel and the plan9 subsystems? It seems like the
latter would be a lot less effort and result in a system that was
easier to track the original sources going
On 1/8/2010 1:10 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
Seems like portability isn't of interest to anyone, anymore.
As Russ suggested to me a while back, the Plan 9 kernel should not
require massive rewriting to port to GCC. Go figure.
Should not but does? Because of gcc or lack of
On Jan 8, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Tim Newsham tim.news...@gmail.com wrote:
Any reason why they prefer to rewrite large portions of
code to use gcc rather than making use of different toolchains
for the L4 kernel and the plan9 subsystems? It seems like the
latter would be a lot less effort and
I might be having a hard time with the Japanese, but my impression is that
the plan 9 processes are now also L4 userspace servers. This makes me think
they're not running a paravirtualized Plan 9 on L4, but put L4 INTO Plan 9.
If they're using pistachio for L4, the code is/was pretty GNU tool
Should not but does? Because of gcc or lack of portability in plan 9's code?
Good question. In my experience, Plan 9 code is very portable,
although occasionally one needs to add the odd struct or union label
that the Plan 9 toolchain does not require.
If I understand correctly, the biggest
actually, code that uses gcc seems to require massive rewrite just to
accommodate different versions of gcc. This has been a huge problem
for 10 years in coreboot. We just have to deal with it. Just look at
the recent Linux security hole attributed to a gcc optimization ...
Experience shows that
I might be having a hard time with the Japanese, but my impression is that
the plan 9 processes are now also L4 userspace servers. This makes me think
they're not running a paravirtualized Plan 9 on L4, but put L4 INTO Plan 9.
The paper I found online said they're currently implementing plan9
actually, code that uses gcc seems to require massive
rewrite just to accommodate different versions of gcc.
I think the most fun I had was when the meaning of some
inline asm() changed. Not a massive rewrite, since it
was only one line, but it was none the less painful.
Dave Eckhardt
On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Tim Newsham wrote:
I might be having a hard time with the Japanese, but my impression is that
the plan 9 processes are now also L4 userspace servers. This makes me think
they're not running a paravirtualized Plan 9 on L4, but put L4 INTO Plan 9.
The paper I
On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Tim Newsham news...@lava.net wrote:
I might be having a hard time with the Japanese, but my impression
is that
the plan 9 processes are now also L4 userspace servers. This makes
me think
they're not running a paravirtualized Plan 9 on L4, but put L4 INTO
Plan
Just look at
the recent Linux security hole attributed to a gcc optimization ...
op-ti-mize [verb (trans.)] ... (gcc) to modify executable code so
that it fails more quickly
As I heard, the largest work in porting Plan 9 to L4 enviroment
is rewriting Plan 9's C code base to be compiled on gcc
as L4 uses the compiler for its development.
The developers of LP49 themselves could chime in, but here is the link
to the project.
You might be surprised how much of Plan 9
This looks really great! Thanks!
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, YAMANASHI Takeshi 9.na...@gmail.comwrote:
As I heard, the largest work in porting Plan 9 to L4 enviroment
is rewriting Plan 9's C code base to be compiled on gcc
as L4 uses the compiler for its development.
The developers
Well I've got it booted in VMWare from the tarball of just a few weeks back
and it looks pretty nice!
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:28 AM, David Leimbach leim...@gmail.com wrote:
This looks really great! Thanks!
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, YAMANASHI Takeshi 9.na...@gmail.comwrote:
As I
Recently found a paper (again) documenting some work going on here.
I've lately sort of had a resurrected interest in OKL4, and I'm always
interested in Plan 9 stuff, so I was wondering what's happened here or if
there's any code to show for it.
It seems like an effort that would take more than
16 matches
Mail list logo
