[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pnet-developers] Porting work remaining question
From: |
Gopal V |
Subject: |
Re: [Pnet-developers] Porting work remaining question |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT) |
Hi,
> Porting that to the 400 seems an issue given the
> requirement
> (according to it's setjmp_t test prog) for an
> assembler version
> of GC_push_regs. The 400 doesn't provide access to
> native
> machine code hence no register access.
Hmm.. I've no idea , I did think that MI-whatever
allows you to work like native code.
> I've posted a question to the gc mailing list, but
> has there been
> any in-depth experience with libgc in the pnet world
> or has it
> simply been a case of plug it in and watch it go?
Mostly plug it in and all that - only tum has fixed
bugs in libgc, IIRC . It's been picked from gcj and
used as such.
Gopal
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
- Re: [Pnet-developers] Porting work remaining question, (continued)
Fwd: [Pnet-developers] Porting work remaining question, Peter Colson, 2004/10/07
Fwd: [Pnet-developers] Porting work remaining question, Peter Colson, 2004/10/07