If you could put just a tgz at sources I'm willing to test it, even for updates, I could just unpack the tgz again and rebuild the thing. although I don't have much spare time these days and it's likely I wont be able to help other than by testing (sorry about that).
But it's great news in any case :) Thanks a lot to you guys. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Lucio De Re <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 08:59:22AM +0300, Pavel Zholkover wrote: >> >> I'm not sure about gcc, but the go toolchain can produce quite well working >> Plan 9 binaries. >> >> Taru also has the go toolchain running native in itself after some >> modifications. >> > Is there a link to this, please? > > I want to take this opportunity to inform 9fans that Russ Cox has helped > me extensively to update the Go release so that the source code for > the 386 assembler, linker and C compiler (8a, 8l and 8c) can be built > without further modification on a 386 Plan 9 native platform. The leap > to the other target CPU architectures (x64 and arm) is small and I have > been preparing the patched sources for it. > > The obvious next step is 8g, but I'm holding back on that right now > so that more extensive testing can take place, rather than propagate > bad decisions. > > I need some help testing the work so far, even more I need some sound > advice, specifically on how to release the scaffolding needed for the Plan > 9 environment without prematurely adding it to the Go release. At the > moment, I'm using a CVS repository as a poor(stupid?)-man's version > of Mercurial Queues and it is possible that this will continue to be > adequate for a while still; I'm concerned about failure of vision, though. > > Putting the repository on "sources" may be one way of propagating my > efforts at this point, but for obvious reasons updates will have to be > submitted on a different channel. Again, suggestions are welcome. I do > have Mercurial available on a public server, but I'm not comfortable with > the tool enough to encourage its use at this point, I find grasping all > the facets of revision control provided by mercurial extremely difficult. > > As for the testing required, I am looking for confirmation that 8c, 8a > and 8l perform as expected in a Plan 9/386 environment, it is building > this environment that I find hard to do right now, hence my request for > some assistance. Naturally, this can all be discussed offline. > > ++L > >
