[Coco] gcc-coco revisited

[David]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:21:11PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2003 21:50, KnudsenMJ at aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 10/31/03 12:08:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >dbree at duo-county.com writes:
> >> to
> >>  > say nothing of macro processing) can be a big learning curve.
> >>
> >>  Of course, unless you wish to stop compiling before the assembly
> >> stage for debugging purposes (e.g. cc -a), and try to read the
> >> assembly source, then the difference would be transparent to the
> >> user.
> >
> >Yes, though most of us have looked at intermediate assembly for
> > debugging, learning, and other reasons.  Another issue would be
> > whether hand-coded assembler routines could still be linked in with
> > the GCC ones.

Yes, it could be linked.  It would just have to be written in the format
of the assembler/linker it used.

> Thats one thing that under normal conditions, GCC cannot do, it has no 
> #ASM directive.

I thought that maybe it did accept straight assembly.  However, although
it would be a bit less convenient, one could write a separate assembly
language function.

> That said, I've noted that since forever, compiling 
> a linux kernel gets you one string of about 6 warnings from the 
> assembler itself about the code that GAS or previously AS was 
> compiling, so I assume someone has figured out a way around that, at 
> least on X86 hardware.  But I've NDI where its at in the kernel 
> src's.

I see some warnings, too.  But, it may be assembling in pedantic (sp?)
mode.  Under that mode -- well, it's just pedantic  :-)

> >Maybe the real question is user base -- would this GCC be used
> > mostly by old hands who still know and love assembly, and would
> > want to at least look at it now and then -- or would this attract
> > new programmers who wouldn't know SEX from PULS and don't care? 
> > What the heck, there are C compilers that don't even generate
> > intermediate assembly code.  Not that I would want to debug with
> > one.

With gcc, you do have intermediate steps.  The -S option is the same as
cc -a under MW

> >>  > Also, why such a hurry to abandon the original Microware C
> >>  > compiler?
>
> >>  Well, the idea is to create a fast cross-compiler, in the vein of
> >>  Boisy's "os9tools" project.  Most of us now spend most of our
> >> time on PC's either Windows or Linux.
> >
> >Sure, I understand the advantages of working on a fast, modern
> > machine.  Like every time I re-make UltiMusE on Linux (45 seconds)
> > versus the MM/1 (45 minutes) or Coco (go out for dinner and a
> > movie).  However, running Microware C compiler on a fast emulator
> > should get much the same effect.

Yes, that's true.  I don't know how fast some of these systems are.  My
trouble is that I am in Linux all the time.  I rarely go into Winders,
where I have the Vavasour emulator.  My P-166 just can't handle mess
under Xwindows.  It's way slower than a coco.