A question about rewriting the .net framework library

May 15, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Hi, this is a wonderful thing.

I downloaded and read the source code in these days and got a puzzle.

Why not use the classes exsiting in .Net Framework or rewrite a new library, like System.String, System.Math etc.

As the IL2CPU can compile the IL to native code. Does it mean that the IL2CPU also can compile the .Net Framework or MONO to native code?

Sorry for my low knowledge.

Coordinator
May 15, 2011 at 3:16 PM
This is exactly what we do, however we do "plug" parts, to implement p/invokes, etc..

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:57 PM, zgring <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: zgring

Hi, this is a wonderful thing.

I downloaded and read the source code in these days and got a puzzle.

Why not use the classes exsiting in .Net Framework or rewrite a new library, like System.String, System.Math etc.

As the IL2CPU can compile the IL to native code. Does it mean that the IL2CPU also can compile the .Net Framework or MONO to native code?

Sorry for my low knowledge.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Developer
May 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM

We can't (legally) compile the .net framework to native code, (well we can, we just can't redistribute it, as it would have been modified, and that's not allowed in it's license), We can however, compile mono to native code, and we are allowed to redistribute modified versions of it. The rest mterwoord has described perfectly.

Coordinator
May 16, 2011 at 12:46 AM
> We can't (legally) compile the .net framework to native code, (well we
> can, we just can't redistribute it, as it would have been modified, and
> that's not allowed in it's license), We can however, compile mono to
> native code, and we are allowed to redistribute modified versions of it.
> The rest mterwoord has described perfectly.

Almost... IANAL but I read the .NET licensing code.. and it appears so
long as you are running the compiled .NET code in a VM with a Windows
host - then you are probably ok for using .NET mainline as well...
Coordinator
May 16, 2011 at 7:23 AM
Also, we aim at using mono as well.

For now, we're focussing on getting compiler more stable, kernel architecture, etc. After that, a mono-shift should be pretty much a no-go (except for a shitload of plugs which might need checking..)



On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:46 AM, kudzu <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: kudzu

> We can't (legally) compile the .net framework to native code, (well we
> can, we just can't redistribute it, as it would have been modified, and
> that's not allowed in it's license), We can however, compile mono to
> native code, and we are allowed to redistribute modified versions of it.
> The rest mterwoord has described perfectly.

Almost... IANAL but I read the .NET licensing code.. and it appears so
long as you are running the compiled .NET code in a VM with a Windows
host - then you are probably ok for using .NET mainline as well...

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com