Re: [9fans] Go/Inferno toolchain (Was: comment and newline in define)

[Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>]

On 26 Jun 2010, at 06:19, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

>> The [568]c compilers in the Go tree are based on the Inferno/Plan 9
>> compilers. Did something change?
>
> Yes, they added ELF, didn't they?  And they used GCC to compile
> everything, which is the bit I've been trying to consolidate since
> more or less the very beginning.  The objective of the consolidation
> is three-fold: (1) upgrade the Plan 9 toolchain to whatever fresh and
> progressive features the Go toolchain provides, including targetting
> ELF (and 6c, not to discounted); (2) port Go to Plan 9 and (3) add to
> plan9port the ability the Go toolchain (as an alternative to GCC) for
> program development.
>
> There's a fourth objective, but it may be above my skill level, which
> is to port all the other Plan 9 and/or Inferno architectures into the
> consolidated toolchain.  Also, one needs to consolidate the linker and
> libmach in some fashion and, lastly, somehow blend in binutils, GCC
> and GDB into the project.  Although the decision by the GCC developers
> to allow C++ code into the GCC codebase, as reported in slashdot, puts
> a bit of a spanner in the works.

There's a lot of great goals above, but I really don't get this last
bit. You want gcc and binutils on and/or targeting Plan 9? And if you
do, why is the C++ code anything more than a minor bootstrapping issue?

>
> It seems a little bit more than the average summer of code endeavour,
> but I'm not discouraging anyone who may want to tackle any of the
> above.  It would be nice if I was made aware of others who may be
> interested.  Right now, I'm catching up with work I did late December
> last year, before it gets lost, buried or uselessly out of date.
>
> ++L
>
>