Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-21 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
Why not specify the logic in scheme and output it either to C or Assembler :-) /Stefan On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, But the used sbcl derivative although not gnu is either in the public domain or bsd so we should be able to publish

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-21 Thread Daniel Krueger
Hey, On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Why not specify the logic in scheme and output it either to C or Assembler :-) That sounds very cool, and would be very cool, I thought first, but then I realized that you wouldn't be able to bootstrap

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-21 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
Yes this can be an issue. On a second thought guile do have an initital interpreter that is either a vm or a native no? Perhaps one can make use of that somehow! /Stefan On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Daniel Krueger keen...@googlemail.comwrote: Hey, On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Stefan

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-21 Thread Daniel Krueger
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: On a second thought guile do have an initital interpreter that is either a vm or a native no? Perhaps one can make use of that somehow! Yeah, I thought about that too, but thought first that it would be

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-21 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
Hmm, yes then it can work. I would compile only to C at the first phase as you say as it should not be of too high complexity to output the C part and be pretty swift although you are interpreting. Then the VM can compile all guile including code to emit and compile assembler and then one can add

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-21 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Daniel Krueger keen...@googlemail.com skribis: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Why not specify the logic in scheme and output it either to C or Assembler :-) That sounds very cool, and would be very cool, I thought first, but

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com skribis: (Note: you could also generate vm-engine.c and your JIT from some third source, but I think we rejected that for being too complicated. It would certainly make the build process more difficult.) Right, but I would still consider it better

Re: patching gcc to allow other calling conventions

2012-06-17 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi Stefan, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com skribis: The reason I wanted to fork sbcl is that it has assemblers for x86,x86-64,alpha,hppa,sparc,ppc,mips e.g a few targets. It would be nice to know what targets to focus on or if we need to add anyone else to the list! Did you