[Coco] CoCo gcc project

[jdaggett at gate.net]

There is a somewhat working prototype for gcc for the 6809 processor. It takes 
alittle from here and there and a dash of this and that and all put into a blender and 
run on high for about 5 minutes. The end results is to hope that it works. 

The intent, from my point of view, was to get that polished first into a cohesive unit 
that is easier to install and run. After that we can start to modifiy and add on 
features. I think we have gone a little on to a tangent here lately and maybe need to 
refocus on to a main goal of getting a gcc that is easy to install and use. 

As for four versions that can be handled with switches for OS, OS9/non OS9, and 
processor, 6309/6809.  

I have no problems with this group or sourceforge forum. Also I have no preference 
to assembler/linker save that it is relocatable. That will be necessary for any OS9 
files written. .  

This is what I am looking for, a chance to learn! 

james

On 3 Nov 2003 at 6:21, David wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:21:17PM -0500, James Dessart wrote:
> > If anyone would like to join the gcc-coco project, that'd be great! 
> > In order to do this, join up to http://sourceforge.net/, then tell
> > me your sourceforge ID.  If you plan on contributing code, or
> > documentation, I'll add you as a developer.
> 
> I'm willing to participate if many people think it's worthwhile.  But
> first, I think we need to get a plan of how to proceed and set up
> goals and no doubt a standard.
> 
> First, what do you all think?  Would it be worthwhile to try to get a
> polished product?  Would there be any application for it after it
> would be finished?
> 
> Secondly, does anyone object to using this forum to fully discuss the
> project?  It could be done on the sourceforge forum, but this medium
> might be more covenient.
> 
> We would need to set up some sort of model to work with.  I'd like to
> see several contributors working on it, and we need some sort of model
> so that everyone can be going in the same direction.
> 
> I can see at least 4 targets:  6309-RSDOS, 6809-RSDOS, 6309-OS9
> 6809-RSDOS.  It looks like we'd need to "create" two machines - the
> two processors.  Most of the methods would be similar for all
> platforms up to the linking stage with minor exceptions.  Personally,
> I'd line to see all OS9 code remain PIC.  RSDOS could go non-PIC, or
> for convenience, we might let it be PIC.  I think a common assembler
> and linker could be used.  The biggest difference would come in the
> linker stage.  The linker would simply build a different module
> depending on whether it was OS9 or RSDOS.
> 
> Finally, what assembler/linker?  Do we use AS or try to do a totally
> rma/rlink compatible routine.  We do already have rma rebuilt as a
> cross assembler (OS9 only for now), and we still have rlink to go.  If
> most people prefer to go to AS, we have all the source to rebuild it
> to whatever we want.
> 
> What do you all think?  I don't know how much use this thing would be
> after it was done, but it might be fun and a good learning experience.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco