On Wed, 31 Aug 1994, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 00:02:50 -0400
> From: Chris G. Demetriou <cgd@alpha.bostic.com>
> To: Charles Ewen MacMillan <ilixi@xochi.tezcat.com>
> Cc: Tasuki Hirata <sukes@Glue.umd.edu>,
>     macbsd-general@sun-lamp.cs.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Merger 
> 
> >  I do not see what the big deal is. If someone wishes to port gcc 2.6 to 
> > the Macintosh, all it requires is a compiler that can build gcc, which 
> > there must be already, if there is a UNIX for the Mac already for crying 
> > out loud.
> 
> The big problem is that a compiler that can build gcc is _not_ all
> that it takes.  If you're running A/UX, then you need to get the
> various patches to make it work from someplace else (probably
> ftp.apple.com, or something like that -- i've not fetched software for
> A/UX for years... 8-), apply them, compile (if you're compiler's up to
> it), etc.  (Of course, there are probably also binaries available at
> the same FTP site, to save you the problem.)

 I am, however not referring to porting to A/UX, but rather both the 
Macintosh environment, and the MacBSD environment.

 As far as patching source, in general one can consider this to be de 
riguer for such a project, and hence beneath comment.

 I do find that I do less source patching with NetBSD than I do with 
SunOS these days for many modern sources, especially if I am porting 
something either strictly ANSI, or for a POSIX compliant environment.

 As long as you can _get_ NetBSD running on a Mac, you can get gcc 
running on the same machine, and hence, you can build gcc on it. The
work is there with any port.

> 
> So there's more work to do, if you want to build the compiler under,
> say A/UX.  similar for NetBSD -- it won't compile straight out of the
> box for NetBSD, because nothing that runs on apple hardware is
> tolerated in the configuration scripts.
> 

 It does not compile straight out of the "box" for the Amiga either, but
it can be done by someone willing to take  the time. And if you can
build one pass, you can build the next. Eventually, you have a compiler
which will work with anything.

> 
> Now, consider another possibility: somebody with a sparcstation is
> trying to build binaries for a mac, or for his friend's mac, or
> whatever.  but he can't easily get gcc to set up a cross compilation
> environment.  Not because the support would be hard to include, but
> rather because someone's ego wouldn't let it be included.
> 

 Same thing with the Amiga: m68k-commodore architecture not supported.

 It has been done anyway. I had a cross compiler up under 2.5.7 that 
could have been made to build for MacBSD with minimal modification.

 If someone will ftp me a recent working libc for MacBSD, and source
for same, I will build a sparc cross compiler.

 Easy is not something that fits into the arena of an FD Operating 
System, easy is getting a commercial product and bitching because
you do not have the source code to make it do your will.
 
 We should probably keep this off of this list, unless the majority wish 
to discuss it. 


Charles Ewen MacMillan  | Tezcat.COM - Wicker Park 
  <ilixi@tezcat.com>    | Offering Internet Access 
Modem: 312-850-0112/0117| Via Interactive UNIX to 
Voice: 312-850-0181     |    the Chicago Area.
WWW: http://tezcat.com/ | Mail: info@tezcat.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------