From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <7871fcf50802061111y1da6442dn3e42ca30288b704e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:11:14 -0500 From: "Joel C. Salomon" To: comeau@comeaucomputing.com, "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] A newbie question... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5d375e920802040312y3b8129aevd76109aad2c56acc@mail.gmail.com> Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 49a9557c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Feb 6, 2008 4:53 AM, Greg Comeau wrote: > And my question remains about gcc, either there is or there > isn't a port for Plan 9, but it seems clear to me that there > is one, so why do people keep saying not? There is a port of GCC, but it's not maintained much and reports vary on how stable it is. Also, 9c-produced 'object files' (basically compressed assembler code) are incompatible with GCC's object files, so any libraries that must be shared need to be recompiled. A '9c++' (actually 2c++, 8c++, kc++, &c.) that compiled through C, using the Plan 9 C compilers, should have no problems -- so long as the front-end doesn't rely on GCCisms or the nuttier (in the Plan 9 viewpoint) misfeatures of C99 like dynamically-sized arrays. --Joel