From bahadir at l4dev.org  Mon Jan 11 19:26:53 2010
From: bahadir at l4dev.org (Bahadir Balban)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:26:53 +0200
Subject: CML2 and Containers
In-Reply-To: <4B38B6D9.6040807@tx.rr.com>
References: <4B2528A8.5000305@l4dev.org> <4B28A7B4.2030506@tx.rr.com>
	<4B28C2F2.4090509@l4dev.org> <4B2B6E86.1020307@tx.rr.com>
	<4B34A02A.9080301@l4dev.org> <4B38B6D9.6040807@tx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4B4B7B7D.5010103@l4dev.org>

Harold Grovesteen wrote:
> "Style" bespeaks religious warfare.  One man's best style practices is 
> just an ugly baby to another man.  On this I seek to be a pacifist.  
> Hopefully for me, the only C code I need to worry about is in the arch 
> tree.  Well, that is the goal for a port anyway.
>
> I guess where I am going here is that certain separation of C vs. 
> assembler makes sense for the arm specific code.  I am not sure the 
> same separations make sense for the mainframe architectures.
>

Well, *most* C style practices that we have have a valid and solid 
reasoning behind it, so I can pretty much come up with reasoning on the 
style than religion. Also on the parts where it becomes religion, it 
would be worth having them for consistent styling.

Anyway if you feel like writing assembler, that could be done in arch 
specific part, e.g. src/arch/hercules/* with no problem.

> What I hope to document is the interface between the arch-specific and 
> generic portions of codezero.  I hope to contribute, besides the port, 
> a porting guide.  That would make it easier for more platforms to get 
> added.  Actually, that should probably be in the wiki.
Sure, it would be certainly helpful to have your perspective on a 
porting document as an outsider's view.

Thanks,

Bahadir