On 11/20/2012 12:44 AM, Landon Fuller wrote:
On Nov 19, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Ingo Weinhold wrote:
PS: What I'd really like to see is support for LLVM bytecode
binaries. Why fat when it can be portable?
Me too, but one of these things I'm capable of doing in a reasonable
amount of time (end of Thanksgiving weekend, if things keep going
smoothly?). The other, not so much :)
Fair enough. If you want to implement FatELF support, just do it.
Really. Even if we don't adopt it now, having it around as an option
would certainly be nice (be sure to keep it in a public repository). If
the runtime loader changes will be as small as I think they will be, we
can probably incorporate them anyway. For the rest it might be a good
idea to see how package management turns out first.
