Messages in this thread | | | From | Rick Hohensee <> | Subject | in re x86/Objective-C kernel | Date | Sun, 20 Jun 1999 06:29:49 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
me >> >>+----- >>| hmmmm. cc1obj is only 80k or so bigger than cc1 in gcc 2.7.2.3. >>| INteresting. >>| >>| I mv'ed cc1, and symlinked cc1obj to cc1. make clean, make dep... >>+--->8 Brandon Allbery > >Building the kernel with the Objective C compiler? Why? NeXT port? :-) >
Built. Big fat one too. Works fine it seems. 1 day of slopping about invested.
No NeXT port. No clue about Objective-C as a language.
Why? A: Why not? B: I'm interested in what is a minimal complete Linux-based OS. My definition of complete is, can maintain and update and add to itself from source. That means a compiler. That also means it's a Linux/GNU or whatever you prefer. In the interest of smallness, I don't currently keep cc1plus or cc1obj around. In 2.7.2.3 the hit for adding Objective-C is 160k or so and slowing the compiler down by 2, and a few easy kernel tweaks. In other words, for a 2x slowdown of the compiler and some minor kernel tweaks my compiler gets 160k larger and I have something disconcerting to say to the OOP weenies without mentioning Forth. I may not go that way, but I am glad to know that's an option. That the kernel is so close to already supporting Objective-C is a side-effect from my point of view.
Rick Hohensee cLIeNUX xart H3sm cycluphonics ftp://linux01.gwdg.de/pub/cLIeNUX http://linux01.gwdg.de/~rhohen
- 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/
| |