[Lazarus] Binary Package System Discussion?
cyraid at gmail.com
Sun Sep 7 01:50:20 CEST 2014
On 14-09-06 03:00 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Den wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I know this has been brought up from time to time, but the more I
>> use NetBeans and other big editors.. The more I miss the fact that it
>> isolates you from being in their pool of source code to build
>> whenever you add a component, etc. Having a binary-only Lazarus
>> would mean an entire overhaul of a binary package system. What would
>> be amazing to see actually, is FPC being able to compile into a
>> universal object (which supports the basic byte code, and sections
>> which will only be used when converting to a certain architecture if
>> necessary.. Like SSE optimized code), then being able to convert into
>> native code at destination machine. Something like Chrome's Native
>> Client does now, which compiles the code into a universal op-code
>> base, and converts it to native at their servers..
> Doesn't NaCl use LLVM?
I think so yep? So I guess I should say "Like LLVM", but the way
Chrome uses it to it's High Level Portal Executable or "pexe" format.
If we had a code generator that outputted the IR language (instead of
Assembly, as an option), we could use that to compile on any
architecture* with LLVM. But then you'd need LLVM external tools.
>> Having this universal binary package system, means we can
>> distribute one package, and have it convert on the destination
>> machine. Means we don't really have to do tricks when distributing
>> your unit when you don't want to distribute the source code (ie.
>> Commercial Packages).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lazarus