Does -fplan9-extensions not do that? Its in the latest gcc for gccgo...
On Apr 3, 2011 11:26 AM, "Lucio De Re" <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 06:34:28AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>>
>> but there definately are some difficult bits. this hacked
>> inclusion of stdio.h is a problem on plan 9.
>>
>>
http://code.google.com/p/go-plan9/source/diff?spec=svnd6ec95bd4f9b2e9af2d10f08d9869aa2ca49d851&r=d6ec95bd4f9b2e9af2d10f08d9869aa2ca49d851&format=side&path=/src/cmd/8a/a.y
>>
> As GNU says, GNU is not Unix (or Plan 9). There is no #ifdef-free
> way to satisfy both toolchains unless one wants to pervert the Plan 9
> toolchain. One trivial change to GCC, namely Plan 9's use of empty names
> to represent unused arguments, would improve GCC greatly, but is unlikely
> to be accepted by the developers. The alternative is a pain in the butt.
>
> But I agree with Erik, the changes to port the Go toolchain to Plan 9
> are quite extensive and would require a great deal of care, I have done
> a similar job a year ago. Actually, I think it was two years agon and
> I failed to resurrect my efforts a year later.
>
> I'm not sure whether the compiler, assembler and linker that seemed
> to work after my first attempts could be used to bootstrap a fresh
> source tree. I put no effort in place on the Go package side, so that
> remains to be tried.
>
> In passing, Erik, you made some changes to Yacc to accept //-comments,
> do you still have those at hand? Do you have some idea why they were
> not applied to P9 Yacc?
>
> ++L
>
