RFC: Move build tools to Perl5, developer tools to Perl6

Christoph Otto christoph at mksig.org
Sat Feb 16 07:20:12 UTC 2013

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 21:48, Gerd Pokorra wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 15.02.2013, 16:07 -0600 schrieb Reini Urban:
> > 
> > It was very easy for me to fix line directives in the p5-based pmc2c emitter,
> > but it is pretty hard for me to add ops line directives to the new
> > nqp-based ops2c,
> > and I don't like the bootstrap cycle:
> > parrot -> nqp -> ops2c -> ops -> c -> parrot
> > The old p5-ops2c -> ops -> c -> parrot was faster and easier to maintain.
> > 
> > nqp is then only needed for the ProfTest which needs to be externalized.
> I do not know much about the internals from parrot so the question:
> Could the step ops2c go outside from the parrot build? May be parrot
> could only take the results from ops2c for the build and the sources for
> ops2c live in an other repository.
> -- Gerd

That's an interesting idea that hadn't occurred to me.  I'll think about
it as I'm looking into resurrecting the thing.  That said, it probably
doesn't make sense.  ops2c gets to be fairly promiscuous in how it
derives information from Parrot and it'd probably be more work than it's
worth to expose that information sanely.


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list