Julian Hall wrote:
> At 12:23 AM 3/21/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> >> [ B.t.w. for memset and memcpy specifically, we might rely on the
> >> fact that those are gcc intrinsic routines, i.e. gcc creates
> >> inline code instead of function calls for those anyway, unless
> >> optimization is disabled. This would tie us to gcc, of course.
> >
> >That doesn't sound like a bad idea. Inline assembly &stuff is
> >compiler-specific anyway. However, the big question is can we
> >create drivers for other OSes in GCC ? I guess it should be
> >possible to compile some files in one compiler and others in
> >another one and then link them, but somebody with experience with
> >an OS such as Windows will need to correct me here, if I'm wrong.
>
> For my part, I will want to use the code on my own operating system, and I
> wasn't actually planning on porting gcc. OTOH, does anyone know how easy
> adding a new target object file format to gcc so that it can cross-compile is?
The object file format is probably not the problem. I have messed with the
GCC source code and to me that would be too complicated ;), but writing a little
program to convert ELF code to your own object format is trivial.
However, why don't you use ELF ? I've been using it for ages, and aside
from the fact that it's the de-facto standard, I've never found a situation
in which the ELF format was lacking in any way.
-- Ramon
