|
[openbeos]
||
[Date Prev]
[01-2002 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[01-2002 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeos] Re: Kernel status (POSIX)
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:34:04 -0500
>Quoth "Nathan Whitehorn":
>>Why does it not make sense=3F I should think that mandating portability
>>(not ppc support per se) would make a lot of sense.
>>-Nathan
>
>I agree totally that mandating portability makes sense. I don't know that it's
>a good idea to mandate specifically that PPC support should be in there or not,
>though PPC is probably the next most likely target after i386..
>
><shrug>
What does it mean to mandate portability?
Does it mean writing no assembly code at all? Go ahead and try to write a
kernel that way. :-)
Does it mean writing as little assembly as possible? That is good kernel design.
Does it mean being modular? That, too, is good kernel design. And the BeOS way.
I am not sure what I, as a kernel developer, should feel mandated to do, here.
|
|
