[openbeos] Re: gcc for BeOS

Scott Mansfield <thephantom@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 13:50 America/Los_Angeles, François Revol 
> wrote:
> 
> > En réponse à Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >> "Bruno van Dooren" <bruno_van_dooren@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> maybe this is a silly question, but i couldn't really find the
> >>> answer:
> >>> do i need to do anything special to install gcc 2.95.3 for BeOS, 
> > > > or
> >>> do i just install
> >>> it like i would on linux (./configure && make bootstrap && make
> >>> install) or do i
> >>> need to do something special?
> >>
> >> AFAIK, the BeOS specific portion in the official sources has 
> > > stopped 
> >> to
> >> be maintained long before 2.95.3. So simply building gcc won't 
> > > result
> >> in a valid tool (if it doesn't even fail to build).
> >>
> >> BTW, there is a binary on BeBits, but it is known to be seriously
> >> buggy.
> 
> "Buggy" in what way?

Personally I experienced problems with the STL, but others mentioned 
severe issues with `normal' code too.

> AFAIK Takashi did a lot of science to insure that 
> the 2.95.3 toolchain works as advertised.  I've noticed that the 
> 2.95.3 
> toolchain on BeBits doesn't properly compile template functions, but 
> that's ok because templates are evil.  ;-)

Er, I rather leave the flaming to others (Erik?). ;-)

[...]
> >>> maybe it would be easy to make a gcc binary for BeOS installer 
> > > > and
> >>> put it up for
> >>> download in the developer section?
> >>
> >> It would be very nice, if someone did.
> >>
> > I'd do that if I had time, but I have bad memory of building gcc 
> > anyway :D
> 
> Pardon my public display of stupidity here but is moving away from 
> the 
> Be-provided toolchain to 2.95.3 such a good idea for R1?  (I vaguely 
> remember a discussion we had about a year ago that this wasn't such a 
> keen thing to do.)

At least I would like starting to use it as early as possible -- right 
now would be best. :-)

Since libgcc.a is compiled into libroot.so, there might indeed occur 
binary compatibility problems, if the 2.95.3 libgcc is not compatible 
with the old one.

> In any case if this is a viable option I'll take on the work.  I've 
> done a lot of embedded stuff and know my way around the gcc 2.x 
> toolchain reasonably well.

Thierry Delhaise started in September last year, but gave up eventually  
(http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=2261122). He 
invested quite some time and made some progress. So, in case you want 
to do the port, you may want to contact him. However, as Axel wrote, 
Zeta will be shipped with a newer compiler, and if that one is fine, 
the time for porting it now would be wasted.

CU, Ingo

Other related posts: