RE: porting of assembler code ...

One suspects that there were good reasons those routines were in assembler
to begin with, having to do with performance and/or functionality. I would
be hesistant to move them without good reason.

Does the GNU compiler support an inline assembly syntax? If so, that would
seem to be an easier path, at least at first.

--Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:06 AM
To: Strongtalk-general
Subject: porting of assembler code ...


Gentlebeings and other lifeforms,

I've been studying the assembly language portions of the strongtalk vm
codebase, in order to get ready to port them to the GNU toolset;
specifically for linux and I'd like to pose to a general question.

Are there compelling reasons to keep all the current assembler in
assembler?  Can we move some, or perhaps all, of the existing
assembler routines into C or C++?

Any and all input is welcomed ...

-- dave




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---