On Feb 6, 2008 8:11 PM, Joel C. Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 6, 2008 4:53 AM, Greg Comeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And my question remains about gcc, either there is or there > > isn't a port for Plan 9, but it seems clear to me that there > > is one, so why do people keep saying not? > > There is a port of GCC, but it's not maintained much and reports vary > on how stable it is. Also, 9c-produced 'object files' (basically > compressed assembler code) are incompatible with GCC's object files, > so any libraries that must be shared need to be recompiled.
I have yet to see that anyone (that is not dead) has ever got the GCC port to work at all. (Fgb spent lots of time trying to get it to go, but to no avail). That it is (was?) linked from the website seems to add more confusion than anything else. uriel P.S.: I want to make clear that I have a deep respect for dhog and his work, it is quite impressive what he managed to do, specially having in mind hideousness and painfulness of the task in question.
