On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Brian Chase wrote:

> > 	Is there any hope in trying to adjust gcc to produce closer code
> > 	to pcc2?
>
> I do sort of like the idea of adding ANSI C support to pcc2.  And
> actually, I think the idea of NetBSD supporting compilation by multiple
> compilers _could_ be considered another aspect of making the OS more
> portable.  I don't know whether it's practical or not.  I know the Linux
> camp is really really really tied to gcc as their compiler, and they
> accept that.
>
	There has been gradual acceptance that NetBSD is going to need
	an ANSI compiler, and that in ertain places we have to resort
	to compiler (read gcc) specific constructs to get the desired
	effect. However, I'd expect any attempt to ensure the tree
	can be compiled under another ANSI compiler (updated pcc2 plus
	whetever extensions needed to get the same effect as the gcc
	tweaks), to be supported.

> Of course pcc2 would also have to be modified to accept some of the
> GNUisms which would be found in much of the userland source... from
> libraries to programs.
>
	Hopefully there are not too many of them. Certainly any that can
	be written another way in legal ANSI C should be eliminated.

> The other approach would of course be to modify gcc's behavior on the VAX
> platform.  I know one of the big complaints is that it's slow and a memory
> hog.  I doubt we'll be able to change that anytime soon for the VAX.
> What I am curious about is any known weaknesses it has when producing
> optimized object code for the VAX.  To me, it seems like we'd be do a hell
> of lot better than the x86 crowd.
>
	I think both approaches should yield benefits.

                David/absolute
			       -- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --