Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 and Ada95?

[Theo Honohan <theo@ideaworks3d.com>]

Aharon Robbins wrote:
> >GNAT would probably come fairly cheaply once we had a port of GCC 3.0.
>
> Actually not.  GNAT is written in Ada, and thus there would need to
> be a cross-compilation boostrap done at some point.

Damn, I hate it when I accidentally say something that sounds upbeat
on 9fans!  I didn't mean to imply that either of these things
was trivial.

I was trying to point out that a GNAT port would rely heavily on
a GCC port, to the extent that it's not probably worth thinking about
porting GNAT until we have gcc.

In fact, from the point of view of getting things like GNAT working, even
a version of GCC that could cross-compile to Plan 9 would be very useful.
This might be easier than porting all that GNU C to compile with the Plan
9 compilers.  Maybe this is self-evidently the way to go, and I'm just
being thick.

Is there any progress with GCC to report, by the way?