From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3fb2408c7c839c97c1c5ba50d3822d90@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Small GCC steps...
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:51:20 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <13426df10802220930q1427a42ak84007f750e390e9a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5efb9ade-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> The big challenge is to get it back to the gcc core so we don't have a
> full port each time.

There's a lot to do.  Just to play catch-up is a bit of a mission,
specially if it's not clear how everything fits together.

I still need to (a) get the APE library ported to GCC, which I presume
I can do with the 3.0 version, there have been significant changes and
some useful files (mkconfig, mksyslib) have not made into the
distribution; (b) identify the changes in GCC 3.0 from its release,
which is also no trivial task; (c) apply the changes to GCC 4.2.3 -
which is the most recent release - and verify that a new release can be
generated successfully.

I then need to go all the way back and try to regenerate GCC 4.2.3 (or
later) from a pristine Plan 9 release, there are always odd bits that
sneak into the woodwork (like the mk* files) and only resurface as
problems.

Finally, I need to wrap the whole lot into some reliable mechanism to
reproduce all my efforts with none of the errors.  And don't nobody
say autoconf, right now!  On the other hand, a reliable "config.h"
file for Plan 9 that describes truthfully what does apply to Plan 9
and/or APE would be nice to have.

Sometime in this process I probably need to get a copyright assignment
with the FSF, before I can submit any changes to GCC.  I guess Bell
Labs may have to tackle that aspect, too.

++L