heimir@hafro.is (Heimir Sverrisson) (08/01/90)
Has someone written the backend for the GNU compliers for the RS/6000? I heard that FSF has such a machine, is that true? -- Heimir Thor Sverrisson heimir@hafro.is -- --- Heimir Thor Sverrisson Uucp: mcsun!isgate!hafro!heimir Internet: heimir@hafro.is
steven@m2xenix.psg.com (Steven Furber) (08/05/90)
In article <176@hafro.is> heimir@hafro.is (Heimir Sverrisson) writes: > >Has someone written the backend for the GNU compliers for the RS/6000? >I heard that FSF has such a machine, is that true? From what conversations I have had with the local IBM RS/6000 SE's, GNU products are not going to be ported or supported by IBM; EMACS was dropped because of the current lawsuit that is going on. Something that I pointed out to the SE who was at work last week was that the XLC compiler seems to choke on a lot of "standard" C code, making easy ports that work on other *NIX platforms a pain. When he asked what I saw as a solution I suggestd GCC, since it would open up the doors to the rest of the GNU universe and the code written thereof. Since there is (from my understadning) no money that IBM can make off of a port, the SE doesn't see where IBM would get into it-- even if the lawsuit is settled. PS: I know nothing at all about compiler design. All I know is that IBM is not interested in supporting non-ANSI and non-POSIX code, which makes it pretty difficult for me to get around on an operating system that has enough "features", "flaws", and "character" to make me wish the old 286 XENIX box had enough capacity to keep being used.
woan@peyote.cactus.org (Ronald S. Woan) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug4.225222.27970@m2xenix.psg.com>, steven@m2xenix.psg.com (Steven Furber) writes: > From what conversations I have had with the local IBM RS/6000 SE's, GNU > products are not going to be ported or supported by IBM; EMACS was > dropped because of the current lawsuit that is going on. I think it would be better termed as a potential lawsuit by Unipress. > Something that I pointed out to the SE who was at work last week was > that the XLC compiler seems to choke on a lot of "standard" C code, > making easy ports that work on other *NIX platforms a pain. When he > asked what I saw as a solution I suggestd GCC, since it would open up > the doors to the rest of the GNU universe and the code written thereof. > Since there is (from my understadning) no money that IBM can make off of > a port, the SE doesn't see where IBM would get into it-- even if the > lawsuit is settled. I hate it when people say things like this without backing it up. Could you post some examples of the "standard" (I take it this means K&R) C code that xlc chokes on? I have a feeling it is mainly due to a lack of understanding of the header standards (did you look at the BSD porting document in /usr/lpp/bos?). GCC would be nice, but then you would loose all of the optimizations performed by xlc (very significant from recent comp.arch postings) that cannot be handled by gcc in its current form. GCC is great for 680?0 code but it leaves much to be desired for the current generation of RISC processors, especially the IBM one. Ron -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@peyote.cactus.org + + If nothing else works woan@soda.berkeley.edu +