Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!hc!beta!hwe
From: hwe@beta.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Non-Intel Minix?
Message-ID: <5129@beta.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-May-87 20:26:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: beta.5129
Posted: Wed May  6 20:26:31 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 8-May-87 04:29:52 EDT
References: <132200005@convexs>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 52
Summary: The Compiler is the problem...

In article <132200005@convexs>, bobm@convexs.UUCP writes:
> 
> Is anybody out there running Minix on a machine with a non-Intel
> processor yet?  I like what I've read of Minix, but I refuse to
> own a machine with segment registers.  Call me prejudiced.
> ...

I would love to work on porting minix to both 68K and PDP-11.
The problem is that when I look at my UniPress price list, and
see $10,000 for the Amsterdam Compiler Kit...
I can't afford $200 for a new disk drive!
And No, I am not, myself, entitled to an educational discount.

I believe that a port will require compiler source. No, I DO NOT want
to modify the compiler. However, the compiler will be needed in
at least three different environments. First, on a minix pc, as a cross
compiler to the target.(e.g. a PDP-11).
Second, on the target under the existing host system (U**X, or whatever)
to test pieces.
Finally, as a native compiler under minix on the target architecture.
This last would be the distributed in binary form with the finished port.

I do feel that minix ports should be done with one compiler base.
While I have a version of PCC that generates 68K code, and I have
both the Ritchie compiler and PCC for 11s, one of the largest lingering
problems with  U**X portability (other than forgetting that short
and int are the same size :-) is the minor (but crippling) differences
between all the Cs in use out there.

I understand that the distribution of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit through
UniPress was a really good thing at the time. It allowed some really
nice stuff to get distributed.
However, when that agreement was reached, I would guess that the situation
with minix was not forseen.

Is there a chance that some scheme could be worked out so that those
of us wanting to port minix could have access to the compiler technology??
I certainly don't mind licensing that would protect UniPress's ability to
sell the product to those who would buy it today. I don't mind licensing
restrictions that would prevent me from letting anyone else have it.
Certainly, distribution of any port would have to route back
through Prentice Hall, and the compiler distributed with a port would
be binary (as in the current system).

Anyone out there (UniPress, Prentice Hall, Distinguished Author??) care to
come up with a scheme that lets me build a compiler and cross compiler to
support a minix port while, at the same time, protecting the interests
of UniPress, and Prentice Hall??

					Skip
					hwe@lanl.gov
					hwe@lanl.UUCP