From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bootstrappable] Re: prototyping the full source bootstrap path
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:48:35 +0100
Message-ID: <87po8ciy64.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <877eulkii1.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3n15mru.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40120)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <janneke@gnu.org>) id 1eGr7o-0001V7-Bk
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:48:57 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <janneke@gnu.org>) id 1eGr7l-0006iL-3X
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:48:56 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87y3n15mru.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:20:53 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, bootstrappable@freelists.org

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes:

Hey Ludo'

> Also, AIUI, stage0 is i386-specific.  Thoughts on how we can eventually
> support the other architectures Guix works on?

I goofed ere.  Stage0 is mainly using a VM and it has a x86_64
prototype; no x86 yet.  Of course, creating the x86 hex0 is almost
trivial given that 64 bit has been done.

However, the main problem is the gap between hex0 and hex1, hex2.  We
just ignored this by prototyping hex2 and M2 in C.  hex2 and M2 are
architecture agnostic.

MesCC currently outputs M2, but only for x86.  I'm confident that if we
show that x86 works and if we consider it to be of value, then x86_64 is
just more work.  Other architectures...well, "just" more work ;-)

> Thank you, and congrats on this milestone!

Thanks!
janneke

--=20
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE http://AvatarAcademy.com