Re: [9fans] GNU Make

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

> well with gnu make you can image building gcc.
> 
> I am wondering if you couldn't build gcc 0.1 or whatever, and once that 
> was working, iterate up to later versions by building on the first 
> version. My memory from 0.1 was that it was pretty portable.

I can only presume that dhog was under pressure to build GCC (how
could he not be?) and that it was simpler to bootstrap it using GCC
itself.  As far as I understand, both GCC and the binutils are fairly
portable, there ought to be a way to port GCC using the native
compiler in its APE impersonation.

Binutils 2.15 have just been released, with a minor glitch I was
hoping would be corrected immediately, but not serious enough to
interfere with building them under APE.  But it will take me some
time and effort.

Once I have gas and ld, GCC 3.5 ought to be released (if it isn't
already) and then whether I use dhog's 3.0 or try to bring the lot
under APE will be an informed decision to be made at the time.  The
crucial thing will be to leave a structure in place so that the
porting efforts are not lost.

As an aside, dhog seemingly needed m4 as well as gmake, I have made
both of these APE-compliant.  Whether we now place them in
/sys/src/ape/cmd or the main /sys/src/cmd (as was done with CVS)
depends on the wishes of the authorities.  Frankly, my opinion is that
they ought to be in an area of their own so that new releases can more
easily be tracked.  CVS and ghostscript might need to move there as
well.

Lastly, APE attempts to compute errno by searching a list of error
strings to find a match.  Would it be out of the question to enhance
all Plan 9 software to use a library of error messages that also
includes a numeric code?  I appreciate it is a tall order, but even if
it needed to be released as 5th Edition I believe it would be a
significant improvement.  I'm willing to do it, but I'm sure I could
use all the advice this list is capable of.

++L