From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: <5d375e920802061732y17992cch4bc588a1f62652ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <5d375e920802040312y3b8129aevd76109aad2c56acc@mail.gmail.com> <7871fcf50802061111y1da6442dn3e42ca30288b704e@mail.gmail.com> <5d375e920802061732y17992cch4bc588a1f62652ff@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Pietro Gagliardi Subject: Re: [9fans] A newbie question... Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:44:27 -0500 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4ab702b6-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The recent flame I mean, discussion on GCC was started with my =20= futile attempts to compile that bloke. However, I no longer think we =20 need anything POSIX, GNU, or X11, as Plan 9 already comes with most, =20 if not all, of the libraries we need: - rio(1) replaces readline (especially hold mode) - libdraw, etc. replaces libX/liboldX/etc. - libcontrol replaces GTK+ - libthread replaces pthreads and countless more. However, I doubt other systems will want these =20 libraries, or use plan9ports internally, so GCC will still be =20 victorious in most situations. The stab it with their steely knives, But they just can=92t kill the beast. Either Don Henley, Glenn Frey or Don Felder On Feb 6, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Uriel wrote: > On Feb 6, 2008 8:11 PM, Joel C. Salomon =20 > wrote: >> 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. > > I have yet to see that anyone (that is not dead) has ever got the GCC > port to work at all. (Fgb spent lots of time trying to get it to go, > but to no avail). > > That it is (was?) linked from the website seems to add more confusion > than anything else. > > uriel > > P.S.: I want to make clear that I have a deep respect for dhog and his > work, it is quite impressive what he managed to do, specially having > in mind hideousness and painfulness of the task in question.