From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30412 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2005 14:22:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30384 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2005 14:21:51 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:21:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5GELncV029948; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:21:49 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j5GELhu25877; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:21:43 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (vpn50-94.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.94]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j5GELdWO021106; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:21:42 -0400 Message-ID: <42B18AEE.4030107@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:22:00 -0000 From: Dave Brolley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: cgen@sources.redhat.com, sid@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] New cpu --- Morpho ms1 References: <42A752B2.8090407@rogers.com> <20050613145452.GE18930@redhat.com> <42B09F6F.7020302@redhat.com> <17072.41406.147361.75051@casey.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <17072.41406.147361.75051@casey.transmeta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 Hi Doug, Certainly some of the scheme code used by CGEN knows exactly what 'application' is using it: sid*.scm, sim*.scm, cgen-sid.scm, cgen-sim.scm I guess that with these one would argue that these source files *are* the 'application'. What we have here are functions which are called by several 'applications' which to analyse the same data but which require different output. I imagine that there must be some way to separate the different logic into the application-specific source files. My knowledge of scheme isn't the greatest so please do make suggestions! Thanks, Dave Doug Evans wrote: >Eewwwww! > >Imagine if bison or autoconf had encoded in them knowledge of particular >applications that used them. >[The analogy doesn't port 1-1, but the eewww-ness is equivalent.] > > >