From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio De Re) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:57:14 +0200 Subject: [9fans] Go Plan 9 In-Reply-To: <033fb4bad1a5301dc98a6c7610c48bd9@ladd.quanstro.net> References: <033fb4bad1a5301dc98a6c7610c48bd9@ladd.quanstro.net> Message-ID: <20110403145714.GF1805@fangle.proxima.alt.za> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c689d50a-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 06:34:28AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > but there definately are some difficult bits. this hacked > inclusion of stdio.h is a problem on plan 9. > > http://code.google.com/p/go-plan9/source/diff?spec=svnd6ec95bd4f9b2e9af2d10f08d9869aa2ca49d851&r=d6ec95bd4f9b2e9af2d10f08d9869aa2ca49d851&format=side&path=/src/cmd/8a/a.y > As GNU says, GNU is not Unix (or Plan 9). There is no #ifdef-free way to satisfy both toolchains unless one wants to pervert the Plan 9 toolchain. One trivial change to GCC, namely Plan 9's use of empty names to represent unused arguments, would improve GCC greatly, but is unlikely to be accepted by the developers. The alternative is a pain in the butt. But I agree with Erik, the changes to port the Go toolchain to Plan 9 are quite extensive and would require a great deal of care, I have done a similar job a year ago. Actually, I think it was two years agon and I failed to resurrect my efforts a year later. I'm not sure whether the compiler, assembler and linker that seemed to work after my first attempts could be used to bootstrap a fresh source tree. I put no effort in place on the Go package side, so that remains to be tried. In passing, Erik, you made some changes to Yacc to accept //-comments, do you still have those at hand? Do you have some idea why they were not applied to P9 Yacc? ++L