Re: [9fans] Google search of the day - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] Google search of the day - Plan9 ; And if you're going to rebut and say that limbo needs dis, then check this out: /n/sources/contrib/andrey/dis.tar.gz (or something) Also works with the Plan 9 toolchain, but you may need to change some files now. On Feb 17, 2008, at ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: Re: [9fans] Google search of the day

  1. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    And if you're going to rebut and say that limbo needs dis, then check
    this out:

    /n/sources/contrib/andrey/dis.tar.gz (or something)

    Also works with the Plan 9 toolchain, but you may need to change some
    files now.

    On Feb 17, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:

    > One more thing:
    >
    > On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:58 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >
    >> porting limbo to a new architecture requires porting ken's toolchain
    >> and the inferno kernel.

    >
    > /n/sources/contrib/pietro/limbo.tgz
    >
    > The only thing ported was the source code and mkfiles.
    >




  2. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Time to reach for the 92FS...

    Dear pietro, if you don't even know that the Plan 9 toolchain *is*
    ken's toolchain, and your other comments are totally irrelevant, why
    don't you just shut the **** up?

    And this obviously doesn't mean erik was right, brucee as usual hit
    every nail straight in the head.

    uriel - trying to do a boyd

    On Feb 18, 2008 5:46 AM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
    >
    > And if you're going to rebut and say that limbo needs dis, then check this
    > out:
    >
    > /n/sources/contrib/andrey/dis.tar.gz (or something)
    >
    > Also works with the Plan 9 toolchain, but you may need to change some files
    > now.
    >
    >
    >
    > On Feb 17, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
    >
    > One more thing:
    >
    > On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:58 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >
    > porting limbo to a new architecture requires porting ken's toolchain
    > and the inferno kernel.
    >
    > /n/sources/contrib/pietro/limbo.tgz
    >
    > The only thing ported was the source code and mkfiles.
    >
    >
    >


  3. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Bruce Ellis wrote:
    > how did this get past my erik filter?
    >
    > wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
    >
    > four out of four as expected.


    Erik,

    Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're not
    the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an option.

    The number one barrier to the advancement of Plan9 is some of the
    louder, more unsavory personalities surrounding the project. 9fans
    seems to be frequented by more than a few jealous, wanna-be Linus's.
    They are the project's greatest liability.

    Regards,

    Rob

  4. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    No, the number one barrier is those who answer nearly every
    thread - with misinformation, usually along the lines of "I don't
    know what I'm talking about but I'll post anyway".

    I rarely post and filter me out if you like.

    To answer Pietro ... Yes, Dis to assembly is common. That's
    what the JITs are - they are fun and instructive to write. Yes,
    there was a good C interpreter back in 10th edition days. I was
    one of the authors. It is still on my micro-vax.

    To answer Uriel ... I believe shand may have a copy of boyd's stuff.

    As for Linus, I'm sure he's a nice guy. I'm quite happy with my
    own life thanks.

    brucee

    On Feb 18, 2008 5:22 PM, Robert William Fuller
    wrote:
    > Bruce Ellis wrote:
    > > how did this get past my erik filter?
    > >
    > > wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
    > >
    > > four out of four as expected.

    >
    > Erik,
    >
    > Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're not
    > the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an option.
    >
    > The number one barrier to the advancement of Plan9 is some of the
    > louder, more unsavory personalities surrounding the project. 9fans
    > seems to be frequented by more than a few jealous, wanna-be Linus's.
    > They are the project's greatest liability.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Rob
    >


  5. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    > Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're
    > not the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an
    > option.


    Wow, that makes two of you. Real Impressive.

    --
    Anant

  6. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Just as an observation (may not be related to the thread), all the
    executable file formats that Linux currently supports, have page-
    aligned sections in the file! (Now I know why hexdump always shows me
    a bunch of zeros in-between).

    That means, all the loader really does is mmap the sections into the
    right memory locations. What next, maybe also put in the BSS in the
    file so you wouldn't have to allocate that either

    Hence, writing the loader for Plan 9's a.out proved to be a challenge.

    I ended up writing a user-space program that padded out the required
    gap between TEXT and DATA before asking the kernel to execute it.
    Suboptimal, but it works.

    If anyone has any ideas as to how I can improve the situation, i'll be
    grateful.

    Thanks,
    Anant

  7. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    grep impressed /sys/games/lib/fortunes

    On Feb 18, 2008 7:30 PM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
    > > Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're
    > > not the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an
    > > option.

    >
    > Wow, that makes two of you. Real Impressive.
    >
    > --
    > Anant
    >


  8. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    hola,

    > Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're not
    > the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an option.
    >

    really? I don't even know bruce, but his posts are one of the things that
    make this list worth reading.

    > The number one barrier to the advancement of Plan9 is some of the
    > louder, more unsavory personalities surrounding the project. 9fans
    > seems to be frequented by more than a few jealous, wanna-be Linus's.
    > They are the project's greatest liability.


    wtf is linus? I _had_ to be some wannabe it wouldn't be a linus one,
    maybe a ken wannabe, but who wants to be a wannabe anyways?

    --
    Federico G. Benavento

  9. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    This is the best community *ever*

    Software, hardware, phylosophy, politics, economics... Whatever the
    discussion is, the best arguments are around this list.

    It is not perfect, though... But each post, each member, makes it special...

    (sha-la-la-la-la...)



    On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Federico G. Benavento
    wrote:
    > hola,
    >
    >
    > > Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're not
    > > the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an option.
    > >

    > really? I don't even know bruce, but his posts are one of the things that
    > make this list worth reading.
    >
    >
    > > The number one barrier to the advancement of Plan9 is some of the
    > > louder, more unsavory personalities surrounding the project. 9fans
    > > seems to be frequented by more than a few jealous, wanna-be Linus's.
    > > They are the project's greatest liability.

    >
    > wtf is linus? I _had_ to be some wannabe it wouldn't be a linus one,
    > maybe a ken wannabe, but who wants to be a wannabe anyways?
    >
    > --
    > Federico G. Benavento
    >


  10. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Hullo,
    Athens voted to give Socrates a farewell toast; it wasn't particularly
    useful to anyone involved. brucee might've been acerbic, but you risk having
    your statements answered acerbically on teh interwebs & off. I, for one,
    enjoy reading almost 100% of what's posted to 9fans, and of the few times
    that I have written brucee, all have been met with the same courteous, if
    terse, style. I'd hate to lose anyone who posts to 9fans, not the least of
    whom would be Erik nor brucee.
    Cheers,
    -- LS

    On Feb 18, 2008 1:22 AM, Robert William Fuller
    wrote:

    > Bruce Ellis wrote:
    > > how did this get past my erik filter?
    > >
    > > wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
    > >
    > > four out of four as expected.

    >
    > Erik,
    >
    > Don't let the bastards get you down. Believe me when I say you're not
    > the only one who would vote Bruce off the list if it were an option.
    >
    > The number one barrier to the advancement of Plan9 is some of the
    > louder, more unsavory personalities surrounding the project. 9fans
    > seems to be frequented by more than a few jealous, wanna-be Linus's.
    > They are the project's greatest liability.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Rob
    >




    --
    "By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer, war peace, plenty
    famine. All things change. Air penetrates the lump of myrrh, until the
    joining bodies die and rise again in smoke called incense."

    "Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions
    harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon
    opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre."

    "This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god
    or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire,
    kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures"
    -- Heraclitus


  11. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    On Feb 18, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Federico G. Benavento wrote:

    > wtf is linus?


    Vivete sotto una roccia?



  12. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Sorry, intended that to be private.

    On Feb 18, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:

    > On Feb 18, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Federico G. Benavento wrote:
    >
    >> wtf is linus?

    >
    > Vivete sotto una roccia?
    >




  13. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    > Vivete sotto una roccia?

    I'm glad I took a latin semester, it helps to decode
    latin derived languages.

    --
    Federico G. Benavento

  14. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    2008/2/18, Lorenzo Fernando Bivens de la Fuente :
    > This is the best community *ever*
    >
    > Software, hardware, phylosophy, politics, economics... Whatever the
    > discussion is, the best arguments are around this list.
    >



    I agree 100%. As one of the persons subscribed to the list in "read
    only mode" I have to tell I love it. You are miles ahead of that rtfm
    catch phrase. When I see a post saying "let's port gcc" I smile
    thinking "this is going to be funny..." I really learn here, and I
    love what I call the "uriel/bruce touch" (I have learned now that it
    is a bit of "boyd touch", but I arrived here a bit too late for
    that...).
    I was just waiting to see somebody throwing the first stone to say how
    I love reading 9fans.

    keep the good work,

    --


    - yiyus || JGL .

  15. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    > I agree 100%. As one of the persons subscribed to the list in "read
    > only mode" I have to tell I love it. You are miles ahead of that rtfm
    > catch phrase. When I see a post saying "let's port gcc" I smile
    > thinking "this is going to be funny..." I really learn here, and I
    > love what I call the "uriel/bruce touch" (I have learned now that it
    > is a bit of "boyd touch", but I arrived here a bit too late for
    > that...).


    You (and everyone) should read the archives, they are pure gold, the
    quality of the discussion in 9fans has been steadily degenerating over
    the years... but as fgb pointed out people like brucee still make it
    worth reading.

    uriel

  16. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    I'll preceed my invective with something relevant :

    Forth's calling convention means the stack is used less for nested calls.

    For the C version there's all sorts of pushing and popping return
    addresses and arguments on to the stack

    float
    sqr(x float)
    {
    return x * x;
    }

    float
    hyp(x float, y float)
    {
    return sqrt(sqr(x) + sqr(y));
    }

    Whereas in the Forth version, the only thing that gets pushed and popped
    is the address of the next function, the arguments are on the stack
    already (assume the FP versions of the Words are used) :

    :sqr dup *
    :hyp sqr over sqr + sqrt


    Now on with the invective



    lolz, I go away for 3 days and I must have left the back door open
    because when I came back the place was full of ignorant bitches.

    I like both of these :

    grep impressive /sys/games/lib/fortune

    I'm glad that the "problem" of Plan 9 has been solved at last, it's the
    people who have been using it for n years.

    My personal n started on June 7 2000, I guess that day is akin to "the
    September that Never Ended" to those for whom n > 7.






  17. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-...internet-forum

    On Feb 20, 2008 10:39 PM, maht wrote:
    > ...
    >
    > lolz, I go away for 3 days and I must have left the back door open
    > because when I came back the place was full of ignorant bitches.
    >
    > ...


  18. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Brantley Coile wrote:
    > Early Control Data machines, like many machines
    > of the era, used the return address to find the parameters.
    > This meant that you put he parameters in the instruction
    > stream right after the call to the subroutine.
    > ...


    Yes, a lot of minicomputers did that in those days. Even on the
    PDP-11, which had nice support for stack operations, some system-
    call conventions involved embedding parameters in-line. Unix did
    that too, although at some point an "indirect" call was added to
    fetch the parameter block from a pointed-to location.

    If you have and CDC Cyber 18 (or 1700) system software, I am
    desperate to obtain a copy for use with my 1700 emulation.

  19. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Brantley Coile wrote:
    > ... For the Cyber 17/18 the instructions could
    > be pc relative and didn't have to be relocated when linked together,
    > at least not for the call/return scenario.


    Also, the 1700 linking and program loading were done at the same time,
    the linker had to traverse threaded references and perform relocation
    on those that needed it. I created a portable implementation of the
    linker some time ago (the assembler is on hold until my retirement).

    > All was much simpler than today.


    Although in a virtual-memory environment no relocation is needed at
    program load time.

  20. Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions

    Eris Discordia wrote:
    > do Plan 9 compilers output COFF object files?


    No, it has its own format. Actually Plan 9 is interesting
    in that some of the work traditionally done by the compiler
    was made the responsibility of the linker.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast