Am 26.08.2013 00:57 schrieb Steve Smith fsk...@yahoo.com:
There's also the issue of the assembler reader (used, if I understand
things correctly, to parse inline assembler mostly in the lower-level
bits of the RTL). This seems to cause almost as much problem during
development as the
Steve wrote:
We can agree on that at least, although I must say that C has
improved a lot since KR days.
I'm afraid I can't agree on that one.
I think it's fair to say that nobody here /likes/ C, otherwise he'd not
be working on Pascal. But a few weeks ago I had to knock together a
Am 26.08.2013 19:45 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd
markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk:
Of course, if I weren't bone idle I'd have investigated whether FPC has
the ability to target the kernel module format, although I'm fairly sure
that nobody's tried it on SPARC before now.
It's a bit dusted, but
On 23/08/13 20:41, Sven Barth wrote:
Firstly, I am not necessarily proposing that we don't concentrate on
Linux initially, in fact it makes a certain amount of sense (In a
perverted way :)) My EXAMPLES concentrate on MVS because that's my
background.
I don't see what would be perverted about
On 23/08/13 21:50, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Quite frankly, from what I've seen most Windows users would find Linux
simpler than one of the *freely* *available* IBM OSes (i.e. MVS, VM/360
sixpack and so on).
To avoid ambiguity: that was a typo, and I meant VM/370
On 8/23/2013 20:45, Steve Smith wrote:
On 23/08/13 20:41, Sven Barth wrote:
Here's some code, assemble it, and be quick about it johnny!
Was that a Short Circuit reference? O.o
Once again in English please. I just don't understand that last sentence at all.
Sorry.
Short Circuit movie -
On 23/08/13 21:12, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Steve wrote:
Quite frankly, from what I've seen most Windows users would find Linux
simpler than one of the *freely* *available* IBM OSes (i.e. MVS, VM/360
sixpack and so on).
Yes, but the difference isn't that wide. You keep saying that Linux
Steve wrote:
I prefer to keep things friendly, but if you are going to issue
vicarious
threats of legal action then I'd much prefer it if you didn't try to put
words into my mouth or distort my meaning. I very clearly referred to
freely-available versions of MVS, VM/CMS and so on, I
Steve wrote:
Most of this is just pussy footing around the issue. Forgive me if I
misrepresent
your position here but it seems that you maintain that the implmentation
should
use a modern instruction set because 1) it generates simpler assembler
Yes.
2) it supports Linux and hence has
On 23/08/13 09:57, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
1) The slightly newer opcodes make the 390 look more like the canonical CPUs
that most people are used to these days. Since any attempt to implement a
port without the help (or at least tolerant supervision) of the core
developers is doomed, I think
On 23.08.2013 19:44, Steve wrote:
2) If an existing FPC developer wants to get involved, it's not
reasonable
to expect him to have to work up the learning curve of MVS before he can
actually run the target environment. Linux on Hercules is a no-brainer.
Linux on Hercules is a no-brainer for
Steve wrote:
If you really think that using gas is going to allow existing 386 family
developers to write assembler for a 390 processor then I'm afraid you
are in for a sever disappointment. Understanding the assembler is a
minuscule part of the skill-set you will require. The newer opcodes
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Quite frankly, from what I've seen most Windows users would find Linux
simpler than one of the *freely* *available* IBM OSes (i.e. MVS, VM/360
sixpack and so on).
To avoid ambiguity: that was a typo, and I meant VM/370 'sixpack'.
As background: it appears that IBM
On 22/08/13 11:00, fpc-devel-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote
GCC plus the basic utilities are definitely ported to VM/370 and
MUSIC/SP (i.e. I've run them), and as far as I know to the others. In
all cases possibly subject to memory restrictions, i.e. might need more
Am 23.08.2013 02:00 schrieb Steve ste...@collector.org:
I would maintain that we restrict ourselves to System/360 assembler; Why?
The
overwhelming reason for this is audience. Let's face it, Pascal, whatever
the
dialect or the target is not the most popular language on the planet.
Having
a
15 matches
Mail list logo
