On 03/04/2010 07:27 PM, b95705...@ntu.edu.tw wrote: > 引述 Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com>: > >> There is no reason in principle this shouldn't be part of gcc. >> >> I think no-one has responded yet because they don't know what it would >> be for, and how much work it would involve. > > What compiler doing is: c -> intermediate language -> asm(ex. x86). > And then, c compiler for efi byte code is: c -> intermediate language -> > efi byte code. > For the c -> intermediate language part, I hope to use original source > code of gcc,so the main point of the project is implementing > intermediate language -> efi byte code part > > In my opinion,the project has some how similarity with compiling c > language to java byte code. And in fact,it has been done by some open > source project(ex. > egcs-jvm[http://sourceforge.net/projects/egcs-jvm/]). I am wondering to > know that trace some existing c to java byte code project would give > direction to implement this project or not.
Perhaps. I don't know if egcs-jvm was ever completed. >> Is this in any way related to plans for a free BIOS? > > YES, coreboot[http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot]and > gnufi[http://www.gnu.org/software/gnufi/] Ah, good. >> Who would maintain this EFI back-end? > > The EFI specification was originally developed by Intel, and is now > managed by the Unified EFI Forum[http://www.uefi.org/home/]. So, you don't know who would maintain the EFI back-end that you're proposing for gcc? As others have suggested, there may be severe technical problems implementing gcc->efi. There seem to be changes needed to the front end. This might work if you could get a group to support the work, but it may be too much for one person in a summer. I don't want to dissuade you, but it's important to be realistic. Andrew.
