Re: porting gcc (Juergen Fischer)
28 Sep 2000 17:39:41 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
porting gcc (2000-09-15)
Re: porting gcc (Jeff Sturm) (2000-09-17)
Re: porting gcc (Michael A. Sewell) (2000-09-17)
Re: porting gcc (2000-09-17)
Re: porting gcc (2000-09-28)
Re: porting gcc (Tom Payne) (2000-10-08)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (Juergen Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Sep 2000 17:39:41 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 00-09-104 00-09-122
Keywords: GCC

thank you all for providing URLs.

Jeff Sturm <> wrote:

> Juergen Fischer wrote:

> > - actually I want g++. assuming a g++ port, is the result any use for
> > porting gcc? are they "RTL-compatible" ?
> Err... why not? Both gcc and g++ generate RTL from syntax trees, and
> they share the same backend.

I heard about the possibility of a c++ -> c translator. however my
theory is that c++ exceptions need capabilities beyond stack
operations expressible in C, which is why I thought it might be
possible RTL had to be extended in order to run c++. this was the idea
behind the question.
Now As RTL turns out to be another level than I had thought of, the
question is obsolete.

> > - I need win32 executable gcc to start with.
> Get the mingw ports at

Oh, I bumped into cygnus executable, but its bin/ contains a
mingwc10.dll ... but ld can't find crt0.o even though it is in
gcc/lib/ .

> > actually my first step problem is to download the right set of
> > source/executable packages to start with. and the "how to port gcc"
> > manual I heard about but searchengines don't find...
> This and many other links are available from the main GCC site:

I had a quick glance at it. mhm looks like lisp.
seems to be a language about pointer = 32bit register.
whilst I, knowing nothing, had expected to be presented some graphs...
then writing C code digging node structs (that keep yummy information
such as char*, I guess that's what you called syntax trees). this is
somewhere in C frontend, and I guess it would have made more
complicated to make this stage the backend interface, especially when
thinking about other language frontents. otoh I wonder whether there
is a machine that can (reasonably) run C, but can't run some of said
languages. probably it would actually not make problems to frontends,
but just complicate the backends.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.