The recent <s>flame</s> I mean, discussion on GCC was started with my
futile attempts to compile that bloke. However, I no longer think we
need anything POSIX, GNU, or X11, as Plan 9 already comes with most,
if not all, of the libraries we need:
- rio(1) replaces readline (especially hold mode)
- libdraw, etc. replaces libX/liboldX/etc.
- libcontrol replaces GTK+
- libthread replaces pthreads
and countless more. However, I doubt other systems will want these
libraries, or use plan9ports internally, so GCC will still be
victorious in most situations.
The stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can’t kill the beast.
Either Don Henley, Glenn Frey or Don Felder
On Feb 6, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Uriel wrote:
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.
