[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Bill Cunningham]

    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.

Bill

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Peter Jeremy]

On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?

What do you mean by "old unixes"?  32V or 4BSD would be trivial.  2BSD
or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible.  gcc was born in a
32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a
16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend):  Both the code and
data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to
using overlays.

If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very
slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that
runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it.

> A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99.

As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it
impossible to build a simple C compiler.

-- 
Peter Jeremy

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Michael Davidson]

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>they don't work much anymore.
>  
>
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.

Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.

Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.

I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...

Michael Davidson

[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
 ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Andrzej Popielewicz]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1482 bytes --]

Michael Davidson napisał(a):

>Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
>  
>
>>   Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>>they don't work much anymore.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
>for the PDP-11.
>
>Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
>least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
>targeted at the PDP-11.
>
>Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
>certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
>*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
>least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
>isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
>
>I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
>wouldn't fit either ...
>
>Michael Davidson
>
>[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
> ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>  
>
What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Perhaps DeJorie could help.

Andrzej

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Peter Jeremy]

On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
>What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
>bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.

Won't work.  http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states:
"3.5 Can I run it on a 286?

 Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also....

 A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here.  Gcc doesn't care
 much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit
 processor, which the 286 isn't.  A 386 or better CPU really is
 required."

-- 
Peter Jeremy

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Wesley Parish]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2621 bytes --]

djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
trick. 
 
If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating 
environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work.  I've never heard of 
anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either. 
 
Just my 0.02c 
 
Wesley Parish 
 
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Michael Davidson napisał(a): 
>  
> >Bill Cunningham wrote: 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It 
> >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would 
> work 
> >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that 
> would 
> >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for 
> safekeeping as 
> >>they don't work much anymore. 
> >>  
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 
> >for the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at 
> >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development 
> >targeted at the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost 
> >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, 
> >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at 
> >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it 
> >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. 
> > 
> >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" 
> >wouldn't fit either ... 
> > 
> >Michael Davidson 
> > 
> >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for 
> > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] 
> > 
> > 
> >_______________________________________________ 
> >TUHS mailing list 
> >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32  
> bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. 
> Perhaps DeJorie could help. 
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> TUHS mailing list 
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Michael Davidson <michael_davidson at pacbell.net> writes:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?
> Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
> least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
> targeted at the PDP-11.

I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff.  It was made just for fun, so it's
not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok.

As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
source tree from old cruft.

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Andrzej Popielewicz]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

Wesley Parish napisał(a):

>djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
>operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
>- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
>trick. 
>  
>
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.

I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit 
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can 
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible .

BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and 
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
be good environment for this simulator (?).
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
console to exit.


Andrzej

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[John Cowan]

Lars Brinkhoff scripsit:

> As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
> haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
> because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
> source tree from old cruft.

http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported
target, with these caveats:  narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE
floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole,
does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use
define_constants, and no ELF support.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev

[TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Wesley Parish]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1896 bytes --]

Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Wesley Parish napisał(a): 
>  
> >djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit  
> >operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS 
> extender  
> >- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same 
> kind of  
> >trick.  
> >  
> > 
> I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time. 
>  
> I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit  
> environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point. 
> I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can  
> create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not 
> impossible . 
 
In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are 
cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted.  Then the files get 
rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a gcc guru 
nor a pdp11 guru. 
>  
> BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and  
> it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386  
> processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
>  
> be good environment for this simulator (?). 
 
That's good news! 
> I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
>  
> console to exit. 
 
You're not the only one, either. 
 
Wesley Parish 
>  
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> PUPS mailing list 
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 

[TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Toby Thain]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2746 bytes --]


On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:

> Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>:
>
>> Wesley Parish napisał(a):
>>
>>> djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16- 
>>> bit
>>> operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS
>> extender
>>> - OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the  
>>> same
>> kind of
>>> trick.
>>>
>>>
>> I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.
>>
>> I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit
>> environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
>> I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc  
>> can
>> create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not
>> impossible .
>
> In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are
> cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted.  Then the files get
> rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a  
> gcc guru
> nor a pdp11 guru.


It can't be done.

As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too  
big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all  
meant for large 32-bit systems.

However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made  
a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it  
can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much  
smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still  
massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.

--Toby

[1] http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/info/lcc-pdp11.html
[2] http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/


>>
>> BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent  
>> 4.2.10 and
>> it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386
>> processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it  
>> seems to
>>
>> be good environment for this simulator (?).
>
> That's good news!
>> I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on  
>> another
>>
>> console to exit.
>
> You're not the only one, either.
>
> Wesley Parish
>>
>>
>> Andrzej
>> _______________________________________________
>> PUPS mailing list
>> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>>
>
>
>
> "Sharpened hands are happy hands.
> "Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
> - A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
>
> "I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"
> I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol  
> of the
> other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
> _______________________________________________
> PUPS mailing list
> PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups

[TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Andrzej Popielewicz]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

Toby Thain napisał(a):

>On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Wesley Parish napisał(a):
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>It can't be done.
>
>As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too  
>big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all  
>meant for large 32-bit systems.
>
>However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made  
>a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it  
>can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much  
>smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still  
>massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
>  
>
Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message : 
too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged 
the system BTW).
Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors 
to Your disposal and You can work faster.
Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have 
anyway only hobbyst license .

Andrzej

[TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Pat Villani]

It's actually a GNU port, with small changes to the actual sources.  
Mainly configure and make file changes so that it properly builds on 
cygwin and linux.  Creates minix binaries.

Pat


Charlie ROOT wrote:
>
> Did you make other improvements than XP cross-compilation?
>
> -aw
>   

[TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Charlie ROOT]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 patv at monmouth.com wrote:

> If this helps at all, I've been working (very, very slowly) on a port of
> v32 to Intel platforms.  At first I used gcc for some kernel work, but
> quickly realized that it would be overwhelming to the final v7 system. 

If you're interested in running V7 on x86, you should check out
the 286-port on the TUHS FTP site, as it was fully operational 
until the author, according to his report, messed up the file 
system code.

For a 32-bit Unix, the Quasijarus project would be better
starting point, as it is more seasoned as a 32-bit operating
system.  The project project was started by Michael Sokolov, with
the primary goal of extending 4.3BSD-Tahoe to run on newer VAX
hardware.  You can find the source, as well as the mailing list,
from the web page at:  http://ifctfvax.harhan.org/Quasijarus/

Because NetBSD and especially GCC have long since outgrown all
but the most powerful VAX hardware, including my VAXstation
4000-60, I've been looking into the possibility of getting
Quasijarus to run on the machine - very slowly, of course.
I've only managed to hack the NetBSD kernel into running the
binaries properly - it should support 32V-ones as well, for
that matter.

I'm also interested in 386-ports of the classical Unix utilities,
but my kernel-side focus is on a brand new, non-portable kernel
written in assembly language for compactness and flexibility of
running, examining and debugging code that excessively picky
operating systems choke at - e.g. real- and kernel-mode code.

> Since I don't want to do the work twice, I looked for a different compiler
> suite.  I switched to the ACK compiler suite and just finished the WinXP
> cross compiler work.  It has a pdp11 back end, which I have yet to try,
> that may be useful.
> 
> It isn't gcc, but ir does do ANSI C and the i386 assembler seems to be
> pretty complete.  Let me know if there's any interest and I'll put it up
> on my site for download.

Did you make other improvements than XP cross-compilation?

-aw

[TUHS] [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[patv]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2106 bytes --]

If this helps at all, I've been working (very, very slowly) on a port of
v32 to Intel platforms.  At first I used gcc for some kernel work, but
quickly realized that it would be overwhelming to the final v7 system. 
Since I don't want to do the work twice, I looked for a different compiler
suite.  I switched to the ACK compiler suite and just finished the WinXP
cross compiler work.  It has a pdp11 back end, which I have yet to try,
that may be useful.

It isn't gcc, but ir does do ANSI C and the i386 assembler seems to be
pretty complete.  Let me know if there's any interest and I'll put it up
on my site for download.

Pat


> Toby Thain napisał(a):
> 
> >On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Wesley Parish napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >It can't be done.
> >
> >As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too  
> >big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all  
> >meant for large 32-bit systems.
> >
> >However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made  
> >a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it  
> >can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much  
> >smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still  
> >massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
> >  
> >
> Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message : 
> too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged 
> the system BTW).
> Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors 
> to Your disposal and You can work faster.
> Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have 
> anyway only hobbyst license .
> 
> Andrzej
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Monmouth Internet MI-Webmail.
http://www.monmouth.com/