Anyone (Russ?) can repeat here aprox. what the workaround for b was, for those like me that didn't attend usenix?
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <eri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Is the porting process active? >> > > It seems to be an opportunistic concurrent activity (which is why I > tried to create a central repo so we'd get some benefit from the > sparse multiple activities). Most people were just waiting for Andrey > :) > > There is some stuff that Forysth/Jmk have been looking at to allow for > the segment registers, but Russ had suggested workaround at USENIX > that I don't think anyone has had time to try yet. > > So here's what my take on what needs to be done: > > a) Simple logistics (makefile/script transformations, Sape's branch > has some of this, what the right way to do this in order to be > integrated back into the mainline go tree is an open question) > b) support or workaround for the segment register stuff > c) runtime support > > People seem to be mostly getting hung up on (a), (b) is probably the > trickiest bit, and I think (c) is just a matter of sitting down and > getting it done. > > I wonder if one way of avoiding (a) is just to rig to cross-compile > from Linux/MacOSX to Plan 9 and get (b) and (c) done first then work > back to (a), just because it seems like it would be more satisfying. > > -eric > >
