From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <44871FF4.2090301@lanl.gov>
Date: Wed,  7 Jun 2006 12:50:28 -0600
From: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
References: <200606071058.35174.corey_s@qwest.net>
	<20060607182441.GF28313@submarine>
In-Reply-To: <20060607182441.GF28313@submarine>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5b281ad8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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.

I want to run MPQC, which can not ever be compiled with 8c. Or one of 
about 1,000 other apps that need gcc. Port one app, solve it once. Port 
gcc, solve it 1,000 times.


> 
>>"If you have gcc on plan 9, will simply compiling the unix code work?"
> 
> 
>   It might, but IMHO it'll defeat the purpose.

no, I don't completely agree. We need gcc for general use, period. 
Unless we like living in a cardboard box in an alley forever.

ron