Considering we are developing both l4 variants and riscv cores, I would agree with Joel's recommendations. Start with sel4 and move to fiasco later if needed.
Hi Hesham,
I would strongly consider seL4 over Fiasco for a few reasons:
1) Fiasco is written in C++ and I found it quit a challenge to read through due to overloaded functions - the control flow jumps between files a lot, and its not always clear which object you have during a static analysis. seL4 on the other hand, is pretty much straight C, and fairly well commented. 2) The code size (as Gernot mentioned) is much smaller in seL4, which makes it easier to comprehend in a short amount of time
But I suppose it really depends on what you intend to do with the kernel in the end. If the verification & proofs are important to you, then the choice is easy. If functionality and features are important, Fiasco probably has the advantage. If you want simple code that a student can read and do something useful with in a short time, my vote is for seL4.
Regards,
Joel
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:38:35 +0000, Hesham ALMatary <heshamelmatary@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm Hesham ALMatary a computer science research student at the
University of York. I am considering porting L4 microkernel variants
to RISC-V [2] (for both my research and Google Summer of Code), and
Fiasco.OC is one of these variants, but I want to extend the options
here by asking about seL4.
Is this project would be: first applicable, and second of interest to
you? And if yes, would you offer some help (guidance)? I am sending
this message as suggested here [1] that I should contact you if I'm
willing to port seL4 to a new platform.
[1] http://sel4.systems/GettingStarted/
[2] http://riscv.org/
Thanks,
-- Hesham
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@sel4.systems
https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@sel4.systems
https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel