[comp.archives] [ultrix] Re: gcc compiler under ultrix 4.0

meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) (01/10/91)

Archive-name: gnu/gcc/gnu-for-pmax/1991-01-09
Archive: foobar.colorado.edu:/pub/Gnu-For-Pmax [128.138.243.105]
Original-posting-by: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner)
Original-subject: Re: gcc compiler under ultrix 4.0 (-g opt.)
Reposted-by: emv@ox.com (Edward Vielmetti)

In article <402@srchtec.UUCP> mra@srchtec.UUCP (Michael Almond) writes:

| In article <91007.141905DEEJ@MAINE.BITNET> DEEJ@MAINE.BITNET (Dj Merrill) writes:
| > ... but am having problems compiling with the -g option.  If I omit this, the
| >gcc compiler seems to make okay, but when I do the check to see if the files
| >are different, they are.  This would indicate an error of some kind.
| >Has anyone run across this problem and have a fix??
| 
| The gcc distributed from GNU doesn't support debugging on the DECstations.
| Thus, it doesn't like the -g option.

Actually with 1.38, it does support -g to the extent of doing line
numbers and tracebacks.  Local symbols on the other hand are not
supported with the vanilla release, since the assembler provides NO
way of setting up the local debug information.

| You'll need to get the version that OSF puts out from foobar.colorado.edu
| (IP address 128.138.243.105).

Here is the canned response I generally send out:

As part of my work for the Open Software Foundation, I have been
supporting GCC for MIPS based platforms.  I have fixed tons of bugs,
and added things like full debug support and better code to omit the
frame pointer.  Dirk Grunwald (grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu) has
supplied patches to bring up G++ with this compiler, and Per Bothner
(bothner@cs.wisc.edu) provided gdb patches.

I maintain a mailing list to get the GCC patches automatically.  Send
me mail if you want to get on the list.

In addition, Dirk has allowed me to put copies of the compiler on his
machine (foobar.colorado.edu, IP address 128.138.243.105) if you can
get sources via anonymous FTP in the pub/Gnu-For-Pmax directory.  Here
is a list of available files as of December 15th:

-rw-r--r--  1 0        system    1721295 Nov 11 02:59 g++-osf-1.9.2.11.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 0        system       8944 Nov 11 02:59 gcc-1.8.1.5-Iris3.3.shar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 ftp      system     510215 Dec 15 10:34 gcc-fsf-1.37.1-osf-1.9.2.14.patch.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 0        system      39757 Nov 11 02:59 gcc-osf-1.9.2.12-osf-1.9.2.13.patch.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 ftp      system      27219 Dec 15 10:34 gcc-osf-1.9.2.13-osf-1.9.2.14.patch.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 ftp      system    1290307 Dec 15 10:49 gcc-osf-1.9.2.14.changed-files.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 ftp      system    2788255 Dec 15 10:42 gcc-osf-1.9.2.14.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 0        system      59587 Nov 11 02:59 gdb-3.5-mips.patch.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 ftp      system     682738 Dec 31  1990 osfrose-tools.new.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 ftp      system    3654053 Dec 13 13:36 osfrose-tools.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 0        system        553 Nov 11 02:59 split.c

The currently known bugs are (12/15/1990):

   1)	malloc.c doesn't work properly in libg++, specify the
	following in the Makefile:

		XTRAFLAGS = -DNO_LIBGXX_MALLOC

   2)	You must configure g++ with the following in Makefile:

		COFFFLAGS = -DUSE_COLLECT -DEXTENDED_COFF

	and the all target should be:

		all: g++ cc1plus collect # crt0+.o crt1+.o

   3)	G++'s Makefile doesn't run in subdirectories yet.

   4)	Ignore the messages (best as I can tell) about duplicate
	functions lmask__Fi, rmask__Fi, BSnew__Fi in libg++ -- these
	are inlines that aren't getting inlined.

   5)	The tFix and wrapper libg++ tests are known not to work.  I
	also had problems with tRandom.

   6)	Debugging isn't completely supported for G++ (it is for GCC).

   7)	Passing structures that are unaligned (ie, contain only shorts
	and/or chars) will not generate the correct code.


George Hartzell (hartzell@boulder.Colorado.EDU) and Peter Ham
(ham@cs.stanford.edu) were looking into better G++ debug support.

--
Michael Meissner	email: meissner@osf.org		phone: 617-621-8861
Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142

Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?