Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarson
From: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: Soapbox ramblings (long)
Keywords: GNU GCC GDB public domain
Message-ID: <14338@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 29 Dec 88 06:18:28 GMT
References: <3979@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> <1196@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles
Lines: 58

In article <1196@mmm.UUCP> schultz@mmm.UUCP (John C Schultz) writes:
>How about porting GNU compilers etc. for OS9?  The price is right - free.

Actually, I have started playing with such a port.  Microware's C (2.2)
realy isn't up to handling the bootstrap.

>We have compiled code on SUN and downloaded to standalone 68000s which
>run OS9 so the changes should be minor.

I actually have Gnu cpp (cccp) running.  Here are a few examples of
"minor":
	Gcc uses looooooooong lines.  Microware C chokes on 512
characters, some gcc macros ten times that, and some constant strings
are longer as well so simple line breaking isn't enough.

	Gcc gobbles memory.  I doubt it will ever work on a system
with less than a megabyte.

	Gcc has no apperent way to generate code without absolute
addresses. 

	Gcc uses structure valued functions, bit fields, void, and
other features not yet present in Microware C (as of 2.2).

	Gcc's argument passing does not match Microware's.

	Gcc assumes a unix library is available.

	Microware's malloc is broken, and cccp exersises the bug.

>  What needs to be done is a
>method of getting the executable header from OS9 so that GCC can
>generate executable files for OS9.

This isn't a problem, since the header is documented.  Convincing Gcc
to arange things compatable with the header is more of a problem.

>It would be nice if Microware realized that they are wasting their
>time with their C compiler/debugger and simply began supporting GNU
>GCC and GDB.  I would think such a decision would actually save them
>money since GCC is already better (e.g. GCC correctly compiles
>floating point and complex function calls) than the OS9 C compiler.
>OS9 would then also have a C++ compiler in the form of G++.  

It might save them money, but it would not directly make them money
either.  Since Microware is in the software business, I don't expect
them to do this.

>And before someone says "Well why don't you do it?", it is in my
>do-on-your-own-time queue but down quite aways behind wife, children,
>house, work I get paid for, ...

Well, if anyone wants a outdated but mostly-working osk gnu cpp, and
will continue the project...
Bob Larson	Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu	blarson@skat.usc.edu
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson
Prime mailing list:	info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu
			oberon!ais1!info-prime-request