Paul Edwards wrote: > In addition, that code has been ported to GCC 3.4.6, which is now > working as a cross-compiler at least. It's still some months away > from working natively though. It takes a lot of effort to convert > the Posix-expecting GCC compiler into C90 compliance. This has > been done though, in a way that has minimal code changes to the > GCC mainline.
You're referring to building GCC for a non-Posix *host*, right? I assume those changes are not (primarily) in the back-end, but throughout GCC common code? > Yes, I'm aware that there is an S/390 port, but it isn't EBCDIC, isn't > HLASM, isn't 370, isn't C90, isn't MVS. It may well be possible to > change all those things, and I suspect that in a few years from now > I may be sending another message asking what I need to do to get > all my changes to the s390 target into the s390 target. At that time, > I suspect there will be a lot of objection to "polluting" the s390 target > with all those "unnecessary" things. Actually, I would really like to see the s390 target optionally support the MVS ABI and HLASM assembler format, so I wouldn't have any objection to patches that add these features ... I understand current GCC supports various source and target character sets a lot better out of the box, so it may be EBCDIC isn't even an issue any more. If there are other problems related to MVS host support, I suppose those would need to be fixed in common code anyway, no matter whether the s390 or i370 back-ends are used. The only point in your list I'm sceptical about is 370 architecture support -- I don't quite see why this is still useful today (the s390 port does require at a minimum a S/390 G2 with the branch relative instructions ... but those have been around for nearly 15 years). Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
