[9fans] GCC etc. - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] GCC etc. - Plan9 ; I have made small progress getting dhog's GCC to compile itself. Briefly, I needed a "mv" that did not barf on a "-f" option, a copy of "head" I stole from NetBSD and a fresh version of "gmake". I used ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: [9fans] GCC etc.

  1. [9fans] GCC etc.

    I have made small progress getting dhog's GCC to compile itself.
    Briefly, I needed a "mv" that did not barf on a "-f" option, a copy of
    "head" I stole from NetBSD and a fresh version of "gmake".

    I used APE, a "mkfile" and the 3.81 sources of gmake to produce
    "/386/bin/gnu/make" which is an improvement on the version in the
    "gnubin" archives.

    I'm not sure whether anyone would actually want the "gmake" at this
    stage, or later when the exercise is more advanced. If you do, let me
    know, I'll dump it on sources.

    ++L

    PS: I'm stuck with a "too big" situation right now, I'll look into it
    tomorrow. I'm proceeding to stage 2, hoping to get the entire "make
    bootstrap" to complete before I'm confident I can release a fresh
    archive and tackle a more recent release. If anyone actually knows
    what was changed in GCC to produce the archive, I could use whatever
    documentation can be sent my way.


  2. Re: [9fans] GCC etc.

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:11 +0000, lucio wrote:

    > I have made small progress getting dhog's GCC to compile itself.
    > Briefly, I needed a "mv" that did not barf on a "-f" option, a copy of
    > "head" I stole from NetBSD and a fresh version of "gmake".
    >
    > I used APE, a "mkfile" and the 3.81 sources of gmake to produce
    > "/386/bin/gnu/make" which is an improvement on the version in the
    > "gnubin" archives.
    >
    > I'm not sure whether anyone would actually want the "gmake" at this
    > stage, or later when the exercise is more advanced. If you do, let me
    > know, I'll dump it on sources.


    As someone who has submitted bug reports against gmake, little things
    like "here is a vaild makefile that causes gmake to go into an infinite
    loop using 100% of one CPU", I strongly suggest getting the source from
    CVS. I have tried to pursuade the maintainer that he should push out a
    new release to fix this bug, but he doesn't see it as important enough.

    When I first submitted the bug, with an example Makefile it was against
    3.80. Then gmake just built too much. The same Makefile against 3.81
    causes the loop. Pity about the lack of regression testing.

+ Reply to Thread