Dmitri:

   **********************
   * What a great news! *
   **********************

  I am guessing that BB under Linux will probably use the i386 compiler 
back end. Are there any plans to either develop back ends for other CPUs, 
to adopt the existing gcc back ends, or perhaps to adopt a CP to C 
translator (e.g., Ofront)?

I am asking because I am doing embedded development on Analog Devices 
Blackfin, which definitely is not i386. To me it would be paramount if I 
could run BB embedded on top of the uCLinux kernel.

Thank you for posting the message!

Wojtek

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Dmitry Solomennikov wrote:

> I had no plan to publish my work on list, but due to some activity last day I will.
>
> I've assembled Linux port of BlackBox. It runs natively on Linux and [with Linux compartibility layer] on FreeBSD boxes.
> It has no GUI yet, but has handmade X and GTK bindings.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/oberonrevival/files/BB/bb-revival-nix-0.1.tar.gz/download
>
> This port was assembled from OpenBUGS, which contained DevElfLinker module. With this module one can
> compile *.so files (i.e. shared objects). External startup file (BlackBox.c) is used to start runtime & kernel.
> Compiled startup file included.
>
> Development is done in cross-compilation style at Windows box (or equal Linux box in Wine). Development files included (Devel.zip).
>
> Archive contains README with full description of "installation" and development (in Russian, UTF-8).
>
> If one'll be intrerested I'll translate README & BlackBox.c to English.
>
> Thanks a lot.
> Dmitry.
>
> Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:16:19 -0500 письмо от Wojtek Skulski <skulski@PAS.ROCHESTER.EDU>:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Fyodor Tkachov wrote:
>>
>>> All (re)written in any flavor of Oberon of course.
>>
>> I do not think that rewriting other's peoples work is of much value.
>> Reinventing the wheel is generally a bad idea.
>>
>> It would be valuable to do something that others are not doing. Not being
>> an OS expert, I can only propose a very simplistic concept. For example,
>> how about using the Linux "modules" (kernel subsystems loaded with insmod
>> or modprobe) to implement either the Oberon System or Oberon-friendly
>> environment? I will call it simply "wirth", though this name may be
>> reserved.
>>
>> I would love to see Oberon System or BlackBox running on top of wirth. Or
>> perhaps a few Oberon Systems or BlackBoxes, each one running on a separate
>> CPU core and communicating with other Oberon Systems via mechanisms
>> provided by wirth.
>>
>> One can say "but BlackBox is running on wine". Yes, but wine is big and
>> not suitable for embedded systems. On the other hand, wirth could be small
>> because its sole purpose would be to provide the Oberon/BlackBox-friendly
>> environment.
>>
>> I am not sure if the idea of wirth makes sense to OS experts. To me it
>> looks fresh. I think it makes more sense than reimplementing parts of
>> Linux kernel, which are perfectly fine, though perhaps ugly. But who cares
>> if it is ugly, if it works? (It does not matter what color is the cat, if
>> it catches mice -- this one is for Fyodor.)
>>
>> W.
>>

----
To unsubscribe, send a message with body "SIGNOFF BLACKBOX" to LISTSERV@LISTS.OBERON.CHdev.