From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 2006 12:05:58 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
Message-ID: <20060607190558.GG28313@submarine>
References: <200606071058.35174.corey_s@qwest.net>
	<20060607182441.GF28313@submarine> <44871FF4.2090301@lanl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44871FF4.2090301@lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5b41ce4c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:50:28PM -0600, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnick wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:58:35AM -0700, Corey wrote:
> >
> >>Two questions - quite likely naive, so please be kind!
> >>
> >>#1 - How difficult approximately would it be to port a
> >>more current release of gcc to plan9, say 4.1?
> >
> >
> >  The gcc source code is pretty messy. But let me ask you
> >  a different question -- what exactly do you want to
> >  achieve with gcc ?
> >
> 
> Let me raise my hand.

  By all means :-)
 
> I want to run MPQC, which can not ever be compiled with 8c. 

  So, is it mostly a backend or a frontend problem ?

> Or one of about 1,000 other apps that need gcc. 

  Could you, please, elaborate on what exactly these apps
  need from gcc ?

> Port one app, solve it once. Port gcc, solve it 1,000 times.

  I don't really think that with a difference in evironment
  between Linux and Plan9 the later holds true.

> >  It might, but IMHO it'll defeat the purpose.
> 
> no, I don't completely agree. We need gcc for general use, period. 

  Sorry, I just fail to see how porting gcc would help. Hence
  to make this discussion a bit more concrete could you, please,
  be more specific about what exact gcc functionality do you think
  would be beneficial to native Plan9 ?

Thanks,
Roman.