llvm dev - Apr 2010 - [LLVMdev] Idea for Google Summer Code : C Compiler for EFI Byte Code implement in LLVM

On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
>>> No, please don't.  This is something we specifically do not
want to support.  The issue is not the parser, the issue is that struct field
offsets are no longer constant in this model.
>> 
>> What about declaring that pointers are always 64 bits, for all
>> purposes other than final code generation of actual pointer
>> instructions? Would that solve the problem?
> 
> No, sizeof will report wrong values.
Which won't matter (as long as sizeof is consistent), because EFI is a
closed system.

-Chris

Hello Chris,

Which won't matter (as long as sizeof is consistent), because EFI is
a
> closed system.
>
What is the meaning of closed system??

Is it 1. not open source
       2. EBC binary is only running on a single EFI EBC interpreter and
never interfacing with the outside VM??

thanks

ching
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100407/f0bd0c19/attachment.html>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:02 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote:
> Hello Chris,
> 
> Which won't matter (as long as sizeof is consistent), because EFI is a
closed system.
> 
> What is the meaning of closed system??
> 
> Is it 1. not open source
>        2. EBC binary is only running on a single EFI EBC interpreter and
never interfacing with the outside VM??
> 
> thanks
#2.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100406/4b1d5e5d/attachment.html>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
>>>> No, please don't.  This is something we specifically do not
want to support.  The issue is not the parser, the issue is that struct field
offsets are no longer constant in this model.
>>> 
>>> What about declaring that pointers are always 64 bits, for all
>>> purposes other than final code generation of actual pointer
>>> instructions? Would that solve the problem?
>> 
>> No, sizeof will report wrong values.
> 
> Which won't matter (as long as sizeof is consistent), because EFI is a
closed system.
No, EFI is not that closed: boot loaders interface with EFI.

Don't forget that EBC code can call native functions.  If sizeof or fields
offsets mismatch I fear that the
program won't work.

Tristan.