Why 2.95.4 ? (and libscl)

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Thu Feb 7 05:40:53 PST 2002

In message <m38za5e89y.fsf at nick.ws.noc.dsvr.net>
          Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr.net> wrote:

> Ian Jeffray <ian at paradise-uk.net> writes:

> > It would be nice to get some of these varying issues noted down somewhere
> > as we may be able to crack several nuts with one stone.  Maybe. ;-)
> Easier said than done.  I think when one starts to go down this path
> we soon start to realise how frustrating it can be to get this stuff
> working on RISC OS.

Yes, it can be.  For me, at least, it's really been a snowball effect.
The more that can be made to work, the more possibilities for other new
things to be made to work.   Anything like this is bound to pay off
later on.

Some of the things I'd like us to consider are:

 - Modules, relocatable code, DLLs and all the code generation
   requirements that go with them.

 - Following the mainline ARM GCC development as closely as possible.
   There's lots of work being done there, and obviously there is plenty
   of stuff that isn't relevant.  But (IME), the differences between
   generating code for RISC OS, and generating it for ARM Linux are
   very minor indeed.   Plus there's the oppurtunity to pick up on
   the on the other compilers - Objective-C, Java and ADA come to mind.

 - This SP vs FP variable access.  Nick, if you can collect your
   thoughts on this one, I'd be interested to hear why this change is

Cheers, Peter

 Peter Naulls - peter at chocky.org
 RISC OS Projects Initiative  -  http://www.chocky.org/initiative/
 Java for RISC OS and ARM     -  http://www.chocky.org/java/
 Debian Linux on RiscPCs      -  http://www.chocky.org/debian/

More information about the gcc mailing list