Re: parrot compilation failure in Tru64

[Philip Kendall]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 06:33:18PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 
> We also need to think about endianness. Urgh.
> 
> This is something I ought to seek consensus on. (And possibly a ruling from
> Dan.)
> 
> Do we *expect* Parrot bytecode to be portable? My gut reaction would be to
> say no, but I can see the arguments either way.

My personal view would be that the gains due to portable bytecode would
be outweighed by the amount of cruft we'd have to put into the
interpreter to get them. As Nicholas Clark and someone else who's name
I've forgotten[1] mentioned, there are platforms (eg Cray) which don't
have a native 32-bit integer type.

OTOH, my impression is that Dan is favouring at least some sort of
bytecode portability.

Phil

-- 
  Philip Kendall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~pak21/