[M3devel] C backend -- mode or call quake?

Jay K jay.krell at cornell.edu
Fri Oct 12 18:50:46 CEST 2012


Clarification: it is "integrated" either way -- no production of .mc files.Just that cm3/builder would know that "IntegratedC" produce a .c file (or perhaps is writing to a pipe) and to then run the C compiler. Vs. pushing that into the backend itself and leaving cm3/builder with "IntegratedObject" that it already knows how to deal with. Either way cm3/builder has to change.

Currently I'm going through config-only changes.

 - Jay

CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
From: antony.hosking at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [M3devel] C backend -- mode or call quake?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:12:53 -0400
To: jay.krell at cornell.edu

I vote for integrated. 

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2012, at 0:43, Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu> wrote:




ok..so..I think time to make this decision and implement it.
 - add a "mode" for C and deal with it in Builder.m3  I implemented and tested that and presented the diff a few weeks ago  It is reasonable, simple, works..but it isn't strictly needed.
or
- use IntegratedObject and have the C backend call the C compiler "itself" (via theexisting quake/config files)I can go ahead and implement that.

Either way, cm3 likely must know about the C backend.It at least has to "new" it, and maybe pass down function pointers for runningthe C compiler -- or maybe M3C can get the pointers itself.
Or I can put this off a bit longer and improve the generated C...Using "integrated" saves us from writing and reading back the .mc files.More efficient.

 - Jay

 		 	   		  
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20121012/487462c3/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the M3devel mailing list