cd_smith@ou.edu wrote:
> You mean you can't use libc? Are you sure that it's easier to reimplement
> all the stuff from libc rather than just fix your link problem? But if
> you do want to reimplement libc, then yes, the best way is probably to
> grab libc and steal the code wholesale. (Assuming, of course, that the
> result will be GPLed.) Reimplementing everything will almost assuredly
> give you a less reliable product with more bugs.
You're right, of course, but the compiler I'm trying to port is already
being used by a number of people for several years. It's *very* stable
and it produces *very* reliable code. I'd say it could compete with the
original Delphi compiler. This is exactly why I want to use this Pascal
compiler in Linux, and not FPC. The compiler also comes with a large
number of libraries, and basically all that needs to be done is change
low-level OS calls like 'open file' or 'get memory'. Until now there
has been no need to reimplement any stuff from libc except for the
wrappers around the INT 0x80 system calls. Unfortunately, with thread
and exception handling it seems to be a bit more complicated. :-)
> > I could change this, of course, but I don't want to make more changes to
> > the original RTL than absolutely necessary.
>
> Part of porting is changing pieces of code that make non-portable
> assumptions. Sorry, but it goes with the territory.
Again you're right. But I don't develop the compiler, I only change the
system libraries and linker stuff for Linux (hoping that the real
compiler developers will recompile the thing for Linux, once everything
works). Also, the compiler itself is still under development, and I want
to keep my changes to the original RTL files minimal, so they don't
conflict with other changes. Also, it will be difficult to tell the
compiler developers to get away from exception handling based on the FS
selector - this is how it is done in OS/2 and Windows, it's *very* fast,
and these are still the two major target platforms of the compiler.
BTW: In your first mail you told be to put the required stack-specific
information on top of the stack. This would also be an acceptable
solution for my problem, but does it really work in i386-Linux? The
segment limits are all set to 0xFFFFFFFF, so is the limit of the stack
segment (I tried LSL). Is there a way to access the stack-top that I
don't see?
--
Bye, E-Mail ......... mailto:joerg.pleumann@trantor.de
Jörg Homepage ... http://www.trantor.de/joerg.pleumann
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/