bruces@daneel.rtech.com (Bruce Stewart) (12/16/89)
I'm looking for a source for the deveopment set for the unix-pc (7300/3B1). I'm currently running 3.51 and would like to acquire the development set (cc, etc.) at a price less than AT&T charges. Pointers to sources or offers to sell gratefully accepted. ADVTHANKSANCE. -bruce stewart
dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) (12/16/89)
In article <4309@rtech.rtech.com> bruces@daneel.rtech.com (Bruce Stewart) writes: >I'm looking for a source for the deveopment set for the unix-pc (7300/3B1). >I'm currently running 3.51 and would like to acquire the development set >(cc, etc.) at a price less than AT&T charges. You're not alone in this. Maybe we'll get lucky and be able to put together a group buy of the 3.51 development set someday. I suppose we'll have to wait until someone finds a cheap source, though. -- David Sandberg dts@quad.uucp or ..uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts "What's the difference??"
neville@hebron.ADS.COM (Neville Newman) (12/18/89)
In article <399@quad.uucp> dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) writes: >In article <4309@rtech.rtech.com> bruces@daneel.rtech.com (Bruce Stewart) writes: >>I'm looking for a source for the deveopment set for the unix-pc (7300/3B1). >>I'm currently running 3.51 and would like to acquire the development set >>(cc, etc.) at a price less than AT&T charges. > >You're not alone in this. Maybe we'll get lucky and be able to put >together a group buy of the 3.51 development set someday. I suppose >we'll have to wait until someone finds a cheap source, though. When i bought my Unix-PC from DDS, now Discovery Electronics, i seem to remember them selling the devel. set at a discounted price. i'm not positive, however. You could call them and ask - i think they're in Atlanta. Now i get to ask - why? Wouldn't it be better in the long run to get of couple of compiler writers to modify gas (GNU Assembler) and family to generate/understand Unix-PC object files? -neville
dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) (12/18/89)
In article <10129@zodiac.ADS.COM> neville@hebron.ADS.COM (Neville Newman) writes: :In article <399@quad.uucp> dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) writes: :>In article <4309@rtech.rtech.com> bruces@daneel.rtech.com (Bruce Stewart) writes: :>>I'm looking for a source for the development set for the unix-pc. :> :>You're not alone in this. : :Now i get to ask - why? Wouldn't it be better in the long run to :get of couple of compiler writers to modify gas (GNU Assembler) :and family to generate/understand Unix-PC object files? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I avoid all GNU software on principle - I don't agree with Stallman's ideas. Besides, there's a lot more to the development set than just a compiler and assembler. -- David Sandberg dts@quad.uucp or ..uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts "What's the difference between 12-bit and 16-bit? A lot more than 4 bits!"
scs@wotan (Steve Simmons) (12/20/89)
dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) writes: >In article <10129@zodiac.ADS.COM> neville@hebron.ADS.COM (Neville Newman) writes: >:In article <399@quad.uucp> dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) writes: >:Now i get to ask - why? Wouldn't it be better in the long run to >:get of couple of compiler writers to modify gas (GNU Assembler) >:and family to generate/understand Unix-PC object files? >Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I avoid all GNU software on >principle - I don't agree with Stallman's ideas. Besides, there's a >lot more to the development set than just a compiler and assembler. Speaking as one who seriously looked at doing the above: There are a number of utilities from the FSF binary utilities that would need to be ported: gas (assembler) and ld (the linker) are absolutely required. In addition strip, nm, and size would be nice (and are trivial). The primary problem is the symbol table (a.k.a. 'stab') format. FSF binutils are (were? I haven't looked recently) firmly based on UC Berkeley format symbol tables. AT&T uses the Common Object File Format (COFF). Since /lib/libc.a and its friends are all firmly COFF files, there are two choices: Modify gas to output COFF format, modify ld to read/output COFF format, modify strip/nm/size to use COFF format. A lot of work. Or... Use a FSF utility called 'robotussin' (coff medicine) to translate the COFF format lib.a files into BSD stab files. Change all your lib.a files, then happily run with FSF binutils. At first the latter sounds very attractive. Be warned, tho, there is a price: you lose the shared libraries. Since this results in radically larger object files and executables, you pay a severe penalty on small memory/small disk machines (like, for example, the Unix PC). There might be a third solution: follow the first route, but hack FSF ld to understand and link 3b1 shared libraries. But to do that you need the development set, and if you have the development set you don't need to do it -- so nobody's done it. Yet. From scs Tue Dec 19 11:34:59 1989 From: scs Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general,misc.wanted Subject: Re: 3B1/7300 Development set wanted Keywords: 3B1, 7300, UNIX-PC, Development set Distribution: usa References: <4309@rtech.rtech.com> <399@quad.uucp> <10129@zodiac.ADS.COM> <401@quad.uucp> Status: OR dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) writes: >In article <10129@zodiac.ADS.COM> neville@hebron.ADS.COM (Neville Newman) writes: >:In article <399@quad.uucp> dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) writes: >:Now i get to ask - why? Wouldn't it be better in the long run to >:get of couple of compiler writers to modify gas (GNU Assembler) >:and family to generate/understand Unix-PC object files? >Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I avoid all GNU software on >principle - I don't agree with Stallman's ideas. Besides, there's a >lot more to the development set than just a compiler and assembler. Speaking as one who seriously looked at doing the above: There are a number of utilities from the FSF binary utilities that would need to be ported: gas (assembler) and ld (the linker) are absolutely required. In addition strip, nm, and size would be nice (and are trivial). The primary problem is the symbol table (a.k.a. 'stab') format. FSF binutils are (were? I haven't looked recently) firmly based on UC Berkeley format symbol tables. AT&T uses the Common Object File Format (COFF). Since /lib/libc.a and its friends are all firmly COFF files, there are two choices: Modify gas to output COFF format, modify ld to read/output COFF format, modify strip/nm/size to use COFF format. A lot of work. Or... Use a FSF utility called 'robotussin' (coff medicine) to translate the COFF format lib.a files into BSD stab files. Change all your lib.a files, then happily run with FSF binutils. At first the latter sounds very attractive. Be warned, tho, there is a price: you lose the shared libraries. Since this results in radically larger object files and executables, you pay a severe penalty on small memory/small disk machines (like, for example, the Unix PC). There might be a third solution: follow the first route, but hack FSF ld to understand and link 3b1 shared libraries. But to do that you need the development set, and if you have the development set you don't need to do it -- so nobody's done it. Yet. -- Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Think of c++ as an object-oriented assembler..."