Why 2.95.4 ? (and libscl)

Steffen Huber steffen at huber-net.de
Thu Feb 7 15:05:03 PST 2002

In message <c4ef14054b.peter at moo.chocky.org>
          Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:

> 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.

Module support...I remember putting that up as one of the targets to
aim for when starting the GCC initiative. As it looks like we won't
get further Norcroft updates, I fear the we have to bite the bullet.

>  - 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.

...and now we are coming to the real reason why I made all the fuss:
a new GNU Ada port. If Nick gets a GCC 3.1 up and running, I would
love to see someone with the necessary technical knowledge to tackle a
GNAT port. I could even offer a rather large bunch of Ada source code to
test it...



Steffen Huber           LambdaComm System - Welcome to Trollinger Country
steffen at huber-net.de
Private homepage http://www.huber-net.de/
... Hier laeuft EHNIX, und ist ZUNIX kompatibel.

More information about the gcc mailing list