>>Perhaps engineering resources that went into making OpenSolaris >>GCC-friendly would have been better spent porting SS10 to other >>platforms? Were I the manager that had the power to decide, I would >>have certainly pushed in that direction, not the other way around. >> >>
I heavily doubt, this would have been cheaper, nor easily possible. Making ON gcc-friendly could be achieved by a small team (apparently almost a one-man team) : Keith *Wesolowski's good job. Are you suggesting, somebody could have ported SUNWspro to another Architecture for that little money? And having the option to compile OpenSolaris with a cross-compiler now, does have _lots_ of future potential. >Being able to compile with gcc means that someone can >> much more readily port to another architectures, such >> as PPC >> or strongarm or ... > > > >Yes, understood, as written previously. That's what's possible thanks to GCC. >The reality is, it did not yet happen. At the moment, we have exactly *zero* >ports to any other architecture/platform. So that is a moot point at best, at >least right now. What I'm saying is, it might have been cheaper, and it would >definitely be more effective, to have ported the compilers to another platform >rather than modified the OS source code to compile with another compiler. The >advantage is increased binary performance in the future. > No, POLARIS is not in the works, aha. It does not compile thanks a gcc-Xcomplier and alsmost boot into user land now. Then: Remember the problems, distributors had with SUNWspro-built c++ code, when the shared C++ libs had been unredistributable. And even today: I can re-distribute them but they might never go open source. And, finally, QEMU is tightly integrated into how gcc works. There is *NO* non-gcc compiler, on any OS or any ARCH, that could bring QEMU to work. Only gcc. -MB * _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
