On Wednesday 07 June 2006 11:24, Roman Shaposhnick wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:58:35AM -0700, Corey wrote: > > > > Two questions - quite likely naive, so please be kind! > > > > #1 - How difficult approximately would it be to port a > > more current release of gcc to plan9, say 4.1? > > The gcc source code is pretty messy. But let me ask you > a different question -- what exactly do you want to > achieve with gcc ? >
Strictly speaking, gcc's just a means to an end ( for a hypothetical project which is currently no more than an idle pipe-dream... so take everything I say with a grain of salt or two ): I'm really just looking for objective-c support on plan 9; doesn't matter to me via which compiler this was provided, but I figure porting gcc to plan 9 would be easier than somehow talking someone into extending 9c with objective-c support. Why do I want objective-c on plan 9? I think that plan 9 would make an interesting and appealing base for a desktop operating system; objective-c and GNUstep is also a very interesting and appealing development environment - hey, why not experiment? Combine the two, and it seems (to me) that a very persuasive, light-weight/fast, general purpose desktop and development environment/platform could potentially be built. > > "If you have gcc on plan 9, will simply compiling the unix code work?" > > It might, but IMHO it'll defeat the purpose. > I completely understand, which is why I was hesitent to even open my mouth on the subject; especially as I'm a mere hobbyist. I really appreciate plan 9's focus, and agree that it should be maintained. The whole point of this idea I'm toying with is to ditch the cruft and luggage of today's linux-based os's.
