mosa Forum Rss Feed

New Post: Microsoft to Open Source the .NET Micro Framework

tgiphil — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:37:17 GMT

FYI:

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/11/16/microsoft-to-open-source-the-net-micro-framework.aspx

New Post: vtables/itables in .NET and MOSA

tgiphil — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:20:25 GMT

Hi! I was hoping someone else with more knowledge on this subject would jump in and answer your question.

MOSA has not reach the stage of being able to compile code that use objects yet. It's next on our to-do list!

My knowledge on this is still limited except I believe that trampolines attempt to resolve the inefficiencies of traversing vtables by using dynamically created dispatch tables for each type. I hope someone else can elaborate more.

Trampolines are also used to stub/intercept a method call when the method has not yet been JIT compiled. The trampoline call into the JIT to have the method compiled, then the trampoline would be patched to call the method (instead of the compiler), and finally call the compiled method.

New Post: vtables/itables in .NET and MOSA

LostTheBlack — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:52:01 GMT

There is a hint in file CodeGenerationStage.cs in line 663 about Microsoft does not use vtables, but instead allocates trampolines.

Could anyone explain this technique? Will MOSA use it?

New Post: Next MOSA Meeting is August 29th

Kintaro — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:30:28 GMT

Could be that I'll join a few minutes later. That depends...if my train is on time I'll be on time too.

Any word from grover so far?

New Post: Next MOSA Meeting is August 29th

tgiphil — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 05:15:20 GMT

Here's the tentative agenda for tomorrow's meeting (in a bit less than 11 hours):

1. Sprint Development Updates
- 0.1 has been released
- 0.2 progress updates from Rootnode & Grover
- 0.3 completed (before 0.2!)
- 0.4 still in planning stage

2. New Contributors
- theanticol - Submitted patches to Pictor for TrueType font support
- 54616E6E6572 - Added PE32/PE32+ support to mosacl

3. Development Tools
- Move to NUnit? Gallio is not available on Linux.
- Use Nant?
- Bochs

4. New Web Site Update
- Retrospectiva?
- Move to "real" SVN repository

5. MOSA Operating System

6. Open Discussion

New Post: Multiboot0695AssemblyStage Incorrectly Throws LinkerException

illuminus86 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:32:26 GMT

Filed under # 24400 : http://mosa.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=24400

See Issue - feedback requested. Thanks!

-Bruce Markham

New Post: mosacl Fails To Resolve mscorlib On Win64 When mosacl Executes As AnyCpu

illuminus86 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:09:36 GMT

Filed under # 24399 : http://mosa.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=24399

See Issue - feedback requested. Thanks!

-Bruce Markham

New Post: Possible MONO Portability Problem

tgiphil — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:39:20 GMT

COM is a binary interface. Therefore COM is unlikely to be supported in MOSA. Anything behind COM interfaces will have to be re-written in C# (or some other CIL compiled language).

New Post: Possible MONO Portability Problem

54616E6E6572 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:59:48 GMT

So I had started some work on converting all P/INVOKES into C# and while doing so I ran across a possible problem.

Most of the classes at the lower end of the object hierarchy are portable and don't rely on any particular implementation. But the closer you get to the root of the Object hierarchy, (System.Object, System.AppDomain, etc...) the more and more the code becomes integrated into Microsoft's COM and the less compliant it becomes with CLI specification (ECMA-335).

In example, the Mono implementation of System.AppDomain, implements the System._AppDomain interface, which allows the user to Create, Define, Execute, Load, etc... Application Domains. The System._AppDomain interface is a child instance of the Microsoft COM IUnknown interface, and is compiled as such. By removing this you break compatibility with both MONO and the .NET framework, but keeping it makes the entire implementation remain reliant on a thin layer of the CLR framework implemented in C/C++. It could be that im just not seeing the obvious but if it is a problem, a solution should be found. :)

New Post: Next MOSA Meeting is August 29th

tgiphil — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:08:18 GMT

CORRECTION: The meeting is in August and not July.

The next MOSA meeting is scheduled for Saturday, August 29th at 9am PST/11am MST/12pm(noon) EST/6pm DST on IRC channel #mosa on irc.freenode.net.

The meeting agenda will be posted in a few days.

- Phil

New Post: Next MOSA Meeting is July 29th

tgiphil — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:16:58 GMT

The next MOSA meeting is scheduled for Saturday, July 29th at 9am PST/11am MST/12pm(noon) EST/6pm DST on IRC channel #mosa on irc.freenode.net.

The meeting agenda will be posted in a few days.

- Phil

New Post: July 26, 2009 - Meeting Notes

__grover — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:09:28 GMT

I agree - great work :)

New Post: July 26, 2009 - Meeting Notes

KebinuChiousu — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:40:16 GMT

Nice Video :)

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:37 AM, illuminus86 <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: illuminus86

Very nice.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (mosa@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email mosa@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com

New Post: July 26, 2009 - Meeting Notes

illuminus86 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:37:16 GMT

Very nice.

New Post: Why not use LLVM for IR to code gen.

prabirshrestha — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:00:37 GMT

hi ben and phil,

even at first i had thought of using the mono to parse the compiled il code. but as a university project it isnt a good idea. so i landed up starting from scratch by creating scanner and parser generator CocoR ( i also created a vs plugin - http://cocor.codeplex.com )

the other alternative was to generate a c/c++ code instead of llvm, but this was already done by - http://crossnet.codeplex.com

rather then just creating the c# compiler, learning the scanner and parser also allows me to understand more and give me the power to be creative. i really wanted to make the compiler for this one http://weblogs.asp.net/bsimser/archive/2007/01/21/domain-driven-design-for-c-3-0.aspx and its quite easy to achive it now that i know how to use scanner and parser :)

anyways there are advantages and disadvantages.

and if it wasnt for my university project, i would had most probly choosen mono to parse the CIL.

New Post: July 26, 2009 - Meeting Notes

Kintaro — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:11:47 GMT

As the 0.3 release only includes mono support so far, we can close 0.3 now :) Good news everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCdgaPDfn0

New Post: Why not use LLVM for IR to code gen.

bklooste — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:14:16 GMT

CIL to LLVM is REALLY easy . Once you have it you can generate new languages ( and use existing languages with LLVM eg Iron Python , C# , F# etc etc ) but best of all because the output is consistent you can check your language output with what the MS and Mono compilers generate and you have a runtime ( Mono or .NET) making a lib of pinvokes is plain ugly. You can even make a few unit tests to compare the CIL output to that produced by cs.exe ( You can’t really do this with LLVM IR mainly because there is no other compiler) .

Note this is CIL as in Common Intermediate Language not CIL (C intermediate Language sourceforge project that does a lot with LLVM)

Regards ,

Ben

From: tgiphil [mailto:notifications@codeplex.com]
Sent: 17 Augustus 2009 06:04 AM
To: bklooste@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why not use LLVM for IR to code gen. [mosa:63702]

From: tgiphil

Prabirshrestha:

I have to agree with Ben on this one. A better focus would be on CIL to LLVM. A C# to LLVM bypasses one of the major benefits of CIL - language interoperability. CIL is the glue that supports multiple source languages (C#, VB, F#, etc) choices.

To be honest C# parsing is already well done by the Mono compiler and open source.

Phil

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (mosa@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email mosa@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com

New Post: TrueType fonts in Pictor

theanticol — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:49:06 GMT

Hmm, OK I put it in the Source Code/Patches section on CodePlex

http://mosa.codeplex.com/Project/Download/FileDownload.aspx?DownloadId=79454

This is a zip file again.

New Post: Why not use LLVM for IR to code gen.

tgiphil — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:04:19 GMT

Prabirshrestha:

To be honest C# parsing is already well done by the Mono compiler and open source.

Phil

New Post: Why not use LLVM for IR to code gen.

bklooste — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:26:36 GMT

Hi prabirshrestha ?

Why ? You can’t really add any value to the free Mono and MS compilers ( these cant be made faster or better) . Why not just compile the CIL to LLVM IR ? If your interested in developing a language you would probably still be better doing CIL to IR first and developing it for the CLR due to the starting base ( you can compare consistent output ) and tools available and having access to the .NET or Mono runtime..

Regards,

Ben

From: prabirshrestha [mailto:notifications@codeplex.com]
Sent: 17 Augustus 2009 12:54 AM
To: bklooste@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why not use LLVM for IR to code gen. [mosa:63702]

From: prabirshrestha

hi,

i m also developing a similar compiler to generate LLVM IR from C#. its gonna be a very small subset of C# thou.

its not gonna use the compiled IL code rather will go through all the process of scanning, parsing, AST semantic analysis.

can find more info at http://projects.prabir.me/compiler

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (mosa@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email mosa@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com