Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:09:32 06/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2002 at 13:10:24, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 30, 2002 at 12:21:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It won't be amusing, because all those pigs flying overhead are going to make >>a horrible mess on our cars. Porting from windows to unix is very non- >>trivial. xwindows has nothing in common with microsoft windows, except that >>they might "look" the same to an end-user. It would mean a total-rewrite of >>the GUI, which would be expensive and time-consuming. > >For a tournament, a text GUI would be doable. Looks _very_ hard. All the book access code is in the GUI. The learning is in the GUI. All the option setting is in the GUI. Etc... > >>For no practical return on the investment. And with fritz being in asm, >>converting that to a unix assembler would be _another_ bit of fun. > >It's not the unix (actually AT&T) syntax that's the problem - the >problem is that it's not an Intel x86 machine. The assembly syntax >conversion itself can be mostly automated. I was thinking only about a conversion to X86 unix, as in linux. The "syntax" is reversed between microsoft and GAS, which means _every_ line of assembly gets modified. A _big_ undertaking. Even without the problem of different architectures. Doing a port to Linux would be _very_ difficult. Doing a port to a different architecture is simply a complete re-write. Cray Blitz was in Cray assembly language. Crafty is now in C. There is a _good_ reason for that. :) > >-- >GCP
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.