Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >How much of the current base of target ports are you willing to give up in >the first cut for fast? The TIL suggestion, amongst others, has the >potential to speed things up rather a lot, but it has the disadvantage of >requiring intimate knowledge of each target port. We should be able to code a TIL kernel in C which would compile to sane code on any RISC machine. (We have one in Pascal round here some place...) -- Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
- Re: Typed Intermediate Language Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Tim Bunce
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Larry Wall
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Ken Fox
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Uri Guttman
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 35 (v1) A proposed internal base format for perl Dan Sugalski