From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: devon.odell@gmail.com (Devon H. O'Dell) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 13:43:53 -0400 Subject: [9fans] Go Plan 9 In-Reply-To: <20110403145714.GF1805@fangle.proxima.alt.za> References: <033fb4bad1a5301dc98a6c7610c48bd9@ladd.quanstro.net> <20110403145714.GF1805@fangle.proxima.alt.za> Message-ID: Topicbox-Message-UUID: c6aec400-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Does -fplan9-extensions not do that? Its in the latest gcc for gccgo... On Apr 3, 2011 11:26 AM, "Lucio De Re" wrote: > On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 06:34:28AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: >> >> but there definately are some difficult bits. this hacked >> inclusion of stdio.h is a problem on plan 9. >> >> http://code.google.com/p/go-plan9/source/diff?spec=svnd6ec95bd4f9b2e9af2d10f08d9869aa2ca49d851&r=d6ec95bd4f9b2e9af2d10f08d9869aa2ca49d851&format=side&path=/src/cmd/8a/a.y >> > As GNU says, GNU is not Unix (or Plan 9). There is no #ifdef-free > way to satisfy both toolchains unless one wants to pervert the Plan 9 > toolchain. One trivial change to GCC, namely Plan 9's use of empty names > to represent unused arguments, would improve GCC greatly, but is unlikely > to be accepted by the developers. The alternative is a pain in the butt. > > But I agree with Erik, the changes to port the Go toolchain to Plan 9 > are quite extensive and would require a great deal of care, I have done > a similar job a year ago. Actually, I think it was two years agon and > I failed to resurrect my efforts a year later. > > I'm not sure whether the compiler, assembler and linker that seemed > to work after my first attempts could be used to bootstrap a fresh > source tree. I put no effort in place on the Go package side, so that > remains to be tried. > > In passing, Erik, you made some changes to Yacc to accept //-comments, > do you still have those at hand? Do you have some idea why they were > not applied to P9 Yacc? > > ++L > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: