Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 and Ada95?

["rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 467 bytes --]

I've never seen a system that supports cross-compilation
the way Plan 9 does, by calling it compilation and making
no bones about whether the compiling and executing
architectures differ.  The trick for doing this is trivial, yes,
but perhaps the observation that it should be done this way
is not, and should be more widely observed.  GCC, for
example, does not make it easy to walk into a directory
and perform the equivalent of

	mk installall

-rob


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3389 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 166 bytes --]

the structure of the support for cross-compilation,
and arranging it for an arbitrary combination,
and the resulting file hierarchy, is also not trivial in gcc.


[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1819 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 and Ada95?
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:44:41 GMT
Message-ID: <87u1w7z703.fsf@becket.becket.net>

dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com (David Gordon Hogan) writes:

> > Cross-compilation in GCC is a trivial matter.
>
> Having done a GCC port, I'd like to point out that with GCC,
> nothing is a trivial matter.

Cross-compilation is trivial; porting is not.