From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 10:45:10 +0100
From: tlaronde@polynum.com
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20130323094510.GA2074@polynum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [9fans] gcc not an option for Plan9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 30449880-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

There are, regularly, mention for "porting" or having gcc(1) on Plan9 in
order to be able to port more user level applications (because user
level applications not only depend on a bunch of things---generally
ignoring standards---but on compiler idiosynchrasies too...).

With gcc 4.8.0, the implementation of gcc is now in C++... And to
compile a compiler, one needs a C++ compiler...

Great! I always thought that, because of what can be embedded in a
compiler (cf. Ken Thompson's Trusting Trust) and because of a
bootstrapping process (as explained in the red dragon book for example),
the compiling of a compiler should need the strict minimum...

IMHO, with the advent of a crisis compared to which 1929 will be a
minor storm, there will be a general disgust and lack of trust and a
return for crucial things to small is beautiful (and safer).

Plan9 is not dead, simply waiting its "finest hour". Gcc on Plan9 is.
And I won't weep.
--
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C