Re: [9fans] Go/Inferno toolchain (Was: comment and newline in

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:54:25PM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> the go toolchain is replete with go-specific things,
> and produces incompatible .8 files (and perhaps for other architectures),
> because of the way certain changes were made.
>
I've had the Go toolchain successfully compile working "C" source
on Plan 9 (for the 386, I seem to recall that the ARM code failed
in more spectacular ways that I could not fix immediately) since
late last year, but it's fading faster and faster besides getting
out of sync with the release code.

Problem is, I'm looking to alleviate all compiler warnings, which
is easy but terribly invasive and getting that approved for release
of the Go source code is not going to be trivial.  And it would be
exciting if the GCC developers could treat a missing argument name
in a function declaration as an unused variable rather than an
error.

And if anyone wants mkfiles, I have a whole lot of them lurking
around.  Once again, some changes are invasive and I'm a tad stuck
with the target selection.

Also, plan9port is an interesting place to play with the Go code,
I've done some of that, someone ought to put some effort in that
direction.

Just so the picture gets a little clearer...

++L