[no subject]

[Gregory McGarry <g.mcgarry%ieee.org@localhost>]

> > (1) user can run a default install (share userland) on different
> > machines/different kernels
> > (2) third-party developer can release a binary which supports
> > (popular/many/most) netbsd architectures
> > (3) user can copy binary to another netbsd machine and "just work"
>
>
> Does size matter?   If we're not careful, and don't put limits on the
> number of ISAs, we could quickly end up with an obese distro.

Well, there's always competing criteria.  Size and speed are  
subjective and difficult to define in absolute terms.  But perhaps I  
could add:

(4) to be done within "acceptable" size and speed expectations

But, for the sake of argument, I don't think size nor speed should be  
an overwhelming constraint.

> > For a bytecode project, NetBSD userland would need to be  
> compiled. ÂI don't
> > believe that netbsd could be compiled to java bytecode. ÂI  
> haven't looked
> > into LLVM, TenDRA, inferno, etc to see if the rhetoric is true.
>
> Of course here we're not talking about Java bytecodes.  Rather more
> compiler directed intermediate forms.  The rhetoric is true as far as
> it can go; for instance C code containing  #ifdef ISA or GCC asm
> directives won't - the code needs to be portable.

I'd be much happier to separate the concept of "bytecode" (whether an  
intermediate form or otherwise) from the compiler suite.  NetBSD has  
a long record of compatibility and stability of its binaries -  
something that shouldn't be handed over to a compiler suite.  It  
would be great to see a "netbsd bytecode" defined.  But maybe it's  
not practical...