[Info-vax] Technical issues with VMS BASIC port to x86-64 ?

[mjos_examine]

On 2024-02-20 2:24 p.m., Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 2/20/24 12:27 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> I am curious, at a purely technical level, about the issues that VSI

> I'm pretty sure this has already been explained multiple times.  What I
> think I remember is that exception handling and dynamic maps pose some
> challenges, and there may be RTL dependencies that are somewhat
> different from the other compilers.  But I don't think COBOL was easy
> either -- it just has a lot more users and was thus a higher priority.

There has been some information posted over the past 11 months.

On 2023-03-01 2:13 p.m., John Reagan wrote in Message ID 
<2f1b5bc7-ee3c-4e9b-8be6-601bef09e868n at googlegroups.com>:
>> Don't blow the BASIC issue out of proportion.  It is just that the BASIC frontend
>> generates GEM symbol table that look "different" than everybody else.  I
>> just haven't had the time (or desire) to change how G2L has to operate.  I'd
>> rather change the BASIC frontend.  I have other things to do first.  It is not
>> a multiple person-year task.  We have all the real HARD pieces of BASIC already
>> working.

On 2023-09-07 9:56 p.m., John Reagan wrote in Message Id 
<311392ca-9f5d-41e0-b15c-b383d5a682b5n at googlegroups.com>:
>> We have resolved one of the difficult issues with BASIC MAP statements
>> and can actually pass a significant number of tests.  However, we still have
>> a few more things to track down before I would say it is useful.
>> 
>> We're actually trying to refresh other compilers this month as well.  Too
>> many things to keep track off including a fresh set of COBOL issues
>> and working on the debugger & DWARF generation.

On a non-serious note, Simon all but guaranteed that it wouldn't appear 
in January, by predicting, several months ago, that it would.
;-)