Common Language Runtime

Common Language Runtime

[Doug Ransom]

Is there any interest in supporting the ECMA instruction set?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/default.asp

I think it would be real cool to build  ECMA executables, even if the other
aspect of the common language runtim (aka Microsoft Commone Language
runtime).  gcc produced executables would target gnu/linux interfaces as
normal rathar than the Microsoft Common Langauge Runtime), and some sort of
jit would be required.  This would really simplify the distribution of
binaries.

On my computer I would only need to install the jit in native code.  Other
gnu binaries could be retrieved in ecma format.

I don't think MS would be too pleased with the application, but it would be
cool.


mailto:dransom@pacificcoast.net
free x.509 Certificates at
http://www.thawte.com/certs/personal/contents.html

Re: Common Language Runtime

[Tim Prince]

How could there be such a thing as an ECMA instruction set?  Maybe a
system in accordance with Microsoft's submission of CLR to ECMA.  They
claim they have someone working on supporting this on linux, and they
will use all their muscle to prevent it from going free software, not
that many free software advocates would touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Besides, various types of free software licenses require distribution of
source code, whihc is far more useful than a CLR executable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ransom" <dransom@pacificcoast.net>
To: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:06 PM
Subject: Common Language Runtime


>
> Is there any interest in supporting the ECMA instruction set?
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/default.asp
>
> I think it would be real cool to build  ECMA executables, even if the
other
> aspect of the common language runtim (aka Microsoft Commone Language
> runtime).  gcc produced executables would target gnu/linux interfaces
as
> normal rathar than the Microsoft Common Langauge Runtime), and some
sort of
> jit would be required.  This would really simplify the distribution of
> binaries.
>
> On my computer I would only need to install the jit in native code.
Other
> gnu binaries could be retrieved in ecma format.
>
> I don't think MS would be too pleased with the application, but it
would be
> cool.

Re: Common Language Runtime

[Doug Ransom]

I don't think Microsoft's muscle is going to be a problem.  I doubt that gcc
would target the entire CLR as that it provides an abstract interface to
operating system type calls (io, security, etc), internet downloading, etc.

If Microsoft does create a CLR implementation on unix, sure they would
charge for it.  However, there is no need to touch their implementation with
a 10 foot pole.  However, I think instead, an effor should be focused on:
    - within GCC building executables which are entirely CLR unmanaged code.
    - build a just in time (or on install) compiler for target machines.

Both these could easily be open sourced, and neither extremely difficult.


Doug Ransom
mailto:dransom@pacificcoast.net
free x.509 Certificates at
http://www.thawte.com/certs/personal/contents.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Prince" <tprince@computer.org>
To: "Doug Ransom" <dransom@pacificcoast.net>; <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Common Language Runtime


> How could there be such a thing as an ECMA instruction set?  Maybe a
> system in accordance with Microsoft's submission of CLR to ECMA.  They
> claim they have someone working on supporting this on linux, and they
> will use all their muscle to prevent it from going free software, not
> that many free software advocates would touch it with a 10 foot pole.
> Besides, various types of free software licenses require distribution of
> source code, whihc is far more useful than a CLR executable.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Ransom" <dransom@pacificcoast.net>
> To: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:06 PM
> Subject: Common Language Runtime
>
>
> >
> > Is there any interest in supporting the ECMA instruction set?
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/default.asp
> >
> > I think it would be real cool to build  ECMA executables, even if the
> other
> > aspect of the common language runtim (aka Microsoft Commone Language
> > runtime).  gcc produced executables would target gnu/linux interfaces
> as
> > normal rathar than the Microsoft Common Langauge Runtime), and some
> sort of
> > jit would be required.  This would really simplify the distribution of
> > binaries.
> >
> > On my computer I would only need to install the jit in native code.
> Other
> > gnu binaries could be retrieved in ecma format.
> >
> > I don't think MS would be too pleased with the application, but it
> would be
> > cool.
>
>
>

Re: Common Language Runtime

[Jim Wilson]

In article < 007001c0d5d8$1c3bb0a0$9865fea9@timayum4srqln4 > you write:
>How could there be such a thing as an ECMA instruction set?  Maybe a

I was wondering about that too, but it makes sense when you remember that
C# is an attempt to replace Java.  Java has bytecodes.  C# has the CIL
(Common Intermediate Language) instruction set.  Not surprisingly, they
are a kind of bytecode, but apparently they are being careful not to use that
term.

It would be possible to write a gcc backend to emit CIL, but we'd rather
encourage use of java than C#.  If C# becomes widespread, then we may
eventually need a CIL backend, but we don't need one now.

Jim

Re: Common Language Runtime

[Miguel de Icaza]

> How could there be such a thing as an ECMA instruction set?  Maybe a
> system in accordance with Microsoft's submission of CLR to ECMA.  They
> claim they have someone working on supporting this on linux, and they
> will use all their muscle to prevent it from going free software, not
> that many free software advocates would touch it with a 10 foot pole.

I have not yet read any report that claims that they are working on
such a beast.  It seems like all the miss-information comes from the
fact that they announced that parts of .NET would run on Linux.
These parts were later unveiled to be just the on-the-server side
pieces of Hailstorm, which is not the CLR.

> Besides, various types of free software licenses require distribution of
> source code, whihc is far more useful than a CLR executable.

A CLR executable would be interesting because people on the Windows
platform could use the GCC compilers to generate their CLR-compatible
code (which is what most new stuff will be developed against). 

Miguel.

Common Language Runtime

[Doug Ransom]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 857 bytes --]

Is there any interest in supporting the ECMA instruction 
set?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/default.asp
 
I think it would be real cool to build  ECMA executables, 
even if the other aspect of the common language runtim (aka Microsoft Commone 
Language runtime).  gcc produced executables would target gnu/linux 
interfaces as normal rathar than the Microsoft Common Langauge Runtime), and 
some sort of jit would be required.  This would really simplify the 
distribution of binaries. 
 
On my computer I would only need to install the jit in native 
code.  Other gnu binaries could be retrieved in ecma 
format. 
 
I don't think MS would be too pleased with the application, 
but it would be cool.
 
  mailto:dransom@pacificcoast.net free 
x.509 Certificates at http://www.thawte.com/certs/personal/contents.html