AmigaOS and The x86 Question
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Mar 2009 23:34 UTC
Amiga & AROS Despite the recent emergence of several new ways to actually run AmigaOS 4.0, the supply of machines is still extremely small, and not very future proof. As such, one of the most recurring questions within the Amiga community is why don't they port the darn thing to x86?
E-mail Print r 10   · Read More · 78 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gd3
Thread beginning with comment 355342
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

If Hyperion Entertainment VOF was going to port to any new architecture at all, I'd recommend LLVM. It runs on either x86, PowerPC, or ARM with roughly equal efficiency.


Interesting. Are there currently any LLVM operating systems out there?

Reply Parent Score: 2

SamuraiCrow Member since:
2005-11-19

Interesting. Are there currently any LLVM operating systems out there?

I thought that Apple was working on something like an LLVM-based OS for the iPod Touch and iPhone but I may be mistaken. There was also a mention of a Linux version on http://www.llvm.org/ called LLVA that was going to be such a thing. I don't know how successful it was.

Amiga Inc. had something like that up on their website based on an early LLVM equivalent called AmigaDE but it was overpriced and delivered underrated performance. AmigaOS 5.0 was supposed to be cross-platform and I think that's the whole reason that Hyperion is fighting this.

Conceptually, you'd still need enough OS to bootstrap LLVM anyway even though it supports static compiling like a regular compiler, it would have to do the final code generation at install time.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Nope. Apple uses LLVM to do things like OpenGL shaders and OpenCL kernels. Which is the sort of applications LLVM makes sense.

I have no clue what you mean by a LLVM as an OS. That is not the target of LLVMs at all...

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >