World: r3wp
[Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Rebolek 25-Mar-2011 [585] | I am now able to compile RED program that throws "Illegal instruction" under OSX which is good thing as it means that the compiler now produces at least valid Mach-O header :) |
Kaj 25-Mar-2011 [586] | You're implementing Mach-O? |
Rebolek 25-Mar-2011 [587] | I'm just trying to ;) |
Kaj 25-Mar-2011 [588] | Cool! |
Dockimbel 25-Mar-2011 [589x3] | Rebolek: great news! :-) |
I'm glad someone picked up the task of implementing Mach-O output format. | |
Rebolek: maybe OS X requires position-independent code for executables? Checking it right now... | |
Rebolek 25-Mar-2011 [592x3] | I should have basics required for functioning executable soon. If it still throws "illegal instruction" then, well... |
Doc no it doesn't, I just still haven't got all the sections done. | |
but I'm close. | |
Dockimbel 25-Mar-2011 [595x2] | Good, it will make the porting easier. |
A link for Andreas: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/MachOTopics/1-Articles/dynamic_code.html I was thinking about using some similar trick for ELF to allow efficient PIC support (avoiding the indirection table). It works by having a fixed offset between CODE and DATA segments in memory, so DATA's start address can be calculated at runtime, and all globals can be accessed using a simple offset. It should be enough to reserve enough space for CODE segment (let's say 10MB) and make DATA entry point fixed? I wonder if the relative offsets between segments are preserved when the segments are moved by OSes (I hope so)? | |
Kaj 25-Mar-2011 [597] | 10 MB should be enough for everyone ;-) |
Gregg 25-Mar-2011 [598x2] | Heck, 640K should be enough for anyone. ;-) |
And...REALLY cool Bolek. | |
Dockimbel 25-Mar-2011 [600] | I first wrote 1MB, then I raised it thinking of possible libs that could get statically linked by users. But, it could be even easier, just hardcoding the DATA address offset somewhere in the CODE segment at linking time might be enough (no need to reserve fixed space in CODE segment). |
Rebolek 26-Mar-2011 [601] | Another milestone reached ;) Now I get "segmentation fault" instead of "illegal instruction" :) |
Dockimbel 26-Mar-2011 [602] | Have you defined a new runtime in red-system/runtime/ for OS X? |
Rebolek 26-Mar-2011 [603] | Right now I just copied the Linux one. |
Dockimbel 26-Mar-2011 [604] | Does OS X support the same syscalls? |
Rebolek 26-Mar-2011 [605x2] | Yes. It's not recommended, but I think that for basic test it's enough. |
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.3.12/bsd/kern/syscalls.master | |
Henrik 26-Mar-2011 [607] | are there specific CPU limitations? could this be done for, say, a 6502? |
Dockimbel 26-Mar-2011 [608] | It requires 32-bit integer support for source compatibility with other platforms, but if you don't care about compatibility, it should be possible to make a 6502 emitter ;-) |
Henrik 26-Mar-2011 [609] | ok |
Dockimbel 26-Mar-2011 [610] | 6502 is a bit far reach with its 8/16 bits architecture, but 68k should be doable while preserving all Red/System's features. |
Henrik 26-Mar-2011 [611] | that would also be quite interesting. |
Kaj 26-Mar-2011 [612] | I'd been phantasising about that, and about porting my 6502 emulator :-) |
Rebolek 26-Mar-2011 [613] | porting 6502 emulator to 6502? :-) |
Kaj 26-Mar-2011 [614] | If I would port the emulator and someone would do a 6502 backend, then yes :-) |
TomBon 28-Mar-2011 [615] | doc, do you planing later external bindings features like SWIG / FFI /ALIEN etc ? or would it be possible to access C/C++ libs directly with RED? |
Kaj 28-Mar-2011 [616x4] | Red/System is a C level language, so you can just call C functions |
Calling C++ requires a C wrapper for the C++ interface, as always with C++ | |
Binding systems such as SWIG are way too heavy for Red, and C functions are neither foreign nor alien to Red/System, so FFI and ALIEN would be too heavy as well :-) | |
The only thing you have to do to call a C function is to translate the defintion of it in the C header to Red/System. It would be possible to write a C header parser to automate that process, one of the things that SWIG does. However, it would lead to ugly Red function definitions that don't make the most of the interface | |
Dockimbel 28-Mar-2011 [620] | Agreed with Kaj. AFAIK, it might be possible to interface with C++ at very low-level, to be able to instanciate C++ objects and call their methods from Red. Same solution for obj-c interfacing, which will be required at some point to port Red to iOS. |
TomBon 28-Mar-2011 [621] | thx, for info |
Kaj 28-Mar-2011 [622x2] | That's in any case possible very naturally for Objective C. Io for example has a transparent Objective C bridge that allows accessing any Objective C object |
For C++, you'd need RTTI to go in the direction of that level of transparency | |
Dockimbel 28-Mar-2011 [624] | Ruby has also a bridge to obj-c (I guess Python too). |
Kaj 28-Mar-2011 [625] | The Io one is likely simplest, and BSD licensed, so you might be able to use some code from it |
TomBon 28-Mar-2011 [626] | changing currently my serverbackends from rebol to luajit/FFI. what a relief and cool experience to just drop some c header inline and access the appropiate lib in seconds. the mapping is nice also. thought that this feature is quite important for Red. |
Dockimbel 28-Mar-2011 [627] | Nice! We will see if we can come up with something even simpler with Red. |
TomBon 28-Mar-2011 [628] | with the last beta you can detect also a real firework of new and planned very usefull bindings there. a feature like this defines a real 'multipropose language' as I stated many times before. |
Dockimbel 28-Mar-2011 [629] | I'll make sure that Red won't lag behind on that aspect. But, as Kaj says, binding to a library like SWIG might be overkill for Red, I'm pretty sure that we can come up with much shorter and better integrated solution for Red (remember that we will have PARSE support and ability to use dialects). |
BrianH 28-Mar-2011 [630] | Objective-C messages can be passed with calls to C functions that are built into the runtime. All languages which have a different object model use these functions to interact with Objective-C in their compatibility layers. Internally, even Objective-C code compiles down to calls to these functions. |
Dockimbel 28-Mar-2011 [631] | Good to know, seems easier at first look, to interface with than C++. |
BrianH 28-Mar-2011 [632x3] | Interfacing with C++ functions and objects requires matching the name mangling and structure layout conventions, and those are different between compilers. There are some attempts to standardize these conventions, but their success is limited. This is why the developers of most Unix clones tend to hate C++. The best solution on most platforms tends to be to use C wrappers or one of the binary object interop standards like COM or CORBA. |
Note that there is a typo in the manual you linked here: http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-16.html#section-3.1 - the caret character is listed as #"^" when it should be #"^^". | |
Actually, almost all of those character literal examples are missing their leading ^. | |
older newer | first last |