verket@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Paul Verket) (03/05/90)
How well/easily does GNU software compile under ISC 386? Has anyone had the oppertunity/interest in compiling kcl or akcl ([Austin] Kyoto Common Lisp) under ISC 386? I've only tried (on 386 machines) to compile GNU gcc on Xenix 386... what a disaster! akcl required gcc so I was completely out of luck. Last question (really!), how feasable would it be to get just a runtime ISC assuming one could get a precompiled gcc? Would I have all the required header files? Thanks in advance for your time... Paul Verket verket@venice.sedd.trw.com
baxter@ics.uci.edu (Ira Baxter) (03/06/90)
verket@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Paul Verket) writes: >How well/easily does GNU software compile under ISC 386? Has anyone had the >oppertunity/interest in compiling kcl or akcl ([Austin] Kyoto Common Lisp) >under ISC 386? I have been using various versions of AKCL on various versions of ISC unix with great success, with earlier versions compiled using the native ICS compiler, and later versions compiled using GCC. I have had version 1.220 of AKCL on ISC 2.0.2 without any hitches since Sept 1989 (the current version of AKCL is 1.4xx something, but the recent changes do not appear to earth-shaking, and, well, I have work to do). I compiled it with GCC 1.36; I also configured AKCL to use GCC as the back end of the (lisp) compilation process. GCC produces smaller and faster object code (about 20% according to simple tests) than the supplied ISC compiler. I do not write any code directly in C, so I can't say anything about the usability of GCC for such purposes, but for AKCL's back end, it is quite good. I am *very* happy with the combination. (I should say that I have compiled GNU emacs with GCC under 386ix also, and use EMACS exclusively; I can't "vi" my way out of a paper bag). >I've only tried (on 386 machines) to compile GNU gcc on Xenix 386... what a >disaster! akcl required gcc so I was completely out of luck. ?? AKCL does not *require* gcc. I was able to compile earlier versions of AKCL with the native ISC compilers without significant trouble. You will have some minor problems; optimization seems not to be terribly robust with the native ISC compilers, and when compiling a large subsystem like EMACS or AKCL, discovering just *which* module can't be compiled with optimization enabled is a royal pain in the a**. GCC 1.36 is the first GCC compiler which would do both EMACS and AKCL with optimization enabled and not have this problem (earlier versions of GCC had just as much trouble as the native ISC compiler). Based on my experience, configuring AKCL will give you some minor headaches that are resolvable. Configuring EMACS is similar; I have not succeeded in making EMACS 18.53 talk to my Graphic Software Systems version of X windows, but I haven't tried very hard. >Last question (really!), how feasable would it be to get just a runtime ISC >assuming one could get a precompiled gcc? Would I have all the required >header files? I don't know. > Thanks in advance for your time... > Paul Verket > verket@venice.sedd.trw.com -- Ira Baxter
jdp@PacBell.COM (Jerry D. Pierce) (03/06/90)
In article <351@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> verket@venice.sedd.trw.com (Paul Verket) writes: >How well/easily does GNU software compile under ISC 386? Has anyone had the >oppertunity/interest in compiling kcl or akcl ([Austin] Kyoto Common Lisp) >under ISC 386? > >I've only tried (on 386 machines) to compile GNU gcc on Xenix 386... what a >disaster! akcl required gcc so I was completely out of luck. I didn't have any problems getting gcc 1.36 (the latest source I can find around here) to compile and run on my Interactive 2.0.2 system. I don't recall having to do any special gyrations to get gcc to compile, but have heard from others that trying to get it to work under Xenix was a major problem... Jerry Pierce pacbell!pbhyf!jdp /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ "Ah, that would be the fate WORSE than the fate worse than death. That must be pretty bad." - BlackAdder IV \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
doleh@math-cs.kent.edu (Yaser Doleh) (03/06/90)
I have ccompiled gcc under ESIX 3.2 rev C. I also compiled kcl and akcl using gcc. I am not sure if you really need gcc to compile akcl. I think the c compiler supplied with ESIX was as good. ESIX suppose to be object code compatible with XENIX Yaser Doleh <doleh@math-cs.kent.edu> Department Of Mathematics & Computer Science Kent State University Kent - OH 44242
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (03/07/90)
In article <351@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> verket@venice.sedd.trw.com (Paul Verket) writes: >How well/easily does GNU software compile under ISC 386? Has anyone had the >oppertunity/interest in compiling kcl or akcl ([Austin] Kyoto Common Lisp) >under ISC 386? I've compiled gcc, bison, and emacs and didn't have too many problems. A couple of small source changes, and one file needs to be compiled without optimization (I'm not sure if this applies to using gcc as well as cc that comes with ISC). BTW, I didn't record the name of that file, could somebody in the know email or post this piece of info. (before recompiling that file, emacs dumps core randomly). >Last question (really!), how feasable would it be to get just a runtime ISC >assuming one could get a precompiled gcc? Would I have all the required >header files? All the header files come with the link kit, as does ld, as, and cc only they have different names. The compiler pieces are the same as the dev. system, but I've never tried to use them to compile. Gerry Gleason