From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 and Ada95? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:51:09 +0200." <200111051551.fA5Fp9o28322@skeeve.com> References: <200111051551.fA5Fp9o28322@skeeve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4726.1004977757.1@starfruit.iw3d.co.uk> From: Theo Honohan Message-Id: Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:29:17 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1480f70a-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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?