Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!bru-cc!eesrajm
From: eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Where to start for 68010 port?
Summary: MIT and Motorola
Message-ID: <1927@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Jan 91 09:06:04 GMT
References: <41242@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 29

In article <41242@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) writes:
> Why do people always say gcc does not compile out-of-the-box MINIX 1.5
> correctly?

(Stuff deleted)

> what the hell do you mean should be modified?
> 
> C.v.W.

The problem here is what you mean by gcc.  In the MINIX-68k world, I take this
to mean the port carried out by Jhawar Bammi, or variants thereof.  This port
can compile with either 16 or 32-bit ints.  Since it is actually a 32-bit
compiler internally, you need some casts to sizeof() in the MINIX-1.5 source
to get it to compile properly.

More importantly, this version of gcc uses gas, and gas only understands MIT
syntax for 68k assembler.  The assembler files in MINIX-68k are written in
Motorola syntax, and need converting before gcc/gas can cope with them.

Andy Michael


-- 
Andy Michael (eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk)      " Emulation is the sincerest
85 Hawthorne Crescent                         form of pottery."
West Drayton
Middlesex                                    - William Frend De Morgan
UB7 9PA