gnupic@linuxhacker.org

I have been out of town and just started catching up on my email.

I am not a jal user.  I saw the GPL message and became interested.  I
contributed a few things and offered some advice.  My main interest was
using it to exercise gplink.  I proposed a "relocatable jal".  The
current developers weren't really interested.  I haven't been involved
since.

I did consider forking the source to create a relocatable jal.  In
general, I hate to do that.  It can cause some real problems for the
current jal users.  Scott has been putting some time into SDCC, so I
didn't pursue it further.

If jal was added to gputils...

- The work couldn't start for a month or so.  I am primarily in a gplink
bug fixing mode.  I am also adding some optimizations to the linker for
Scott.  I would like a central role in any gputils changes of this
magnitude.

- It must generate relocatable objects and use gplink.

- It wouldn't work exactly like the current jal.  New pragmas and
storage modifiers would have to be added.

- Most of the code would probably be original, some could be reused. 
Mainly because much of what jal does is already handled by gputils.

I am not against adding a high level language to gputils.  If things
keep going well, I may have time later this summer.

I try to be considerate of requests when deciding what to work on.  How
does everyone feel?  Would you rather see a gputils HLL or more work on
gpasm?  Any jal opinions out there?

I do get burned out on gpasm from time to time.  It's not bad, but
deriving requirements from mpasm is.  I think we are starting to have
diminishing returns with the gpasm bug fixes.  We are 95% there.  The
last 5% will take BIG work.

Byron A Jeff wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 06:30:44AM +0200, Ralf Forsberg wrote:
> > On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 07:47:57PM -0400, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> > > Also I guess that adding some sort of gpsim support would probably be
> > > next on the support list.
> >
> > Actually, there is already support for SDCC-style HLL line number
> > information. IIRC adding  -rg to the command line will make jal
> > generate line numbers for gpsim. It's not documented anywhere though.
> 
> Cool. But I still haven't heard any opinions on the core ideas. So I'll state
> it again (espcially for you Ralf as one of the active gputils developers):
> 
> Do you think it's a good idea to look into integraing JAL into the gputils
> suite? If so then what would be the best mechanism for doing so?
> 
> BAJ
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: gnupic-unsubscribe@linuxhacker.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: gnupic-help@linuxhacker.org