Before I apply some serious effort to bring P9GCC in line with the
latest release, I'd like to convince myself that the effort is worth
it. I'm keen to catch two birds with one stone: (a) make sure that
version 3.0 is sufficiently functional and (b) determine how useful it
really is.

Please will anybody who has a Plan 9 objective that can only be
attained using GCC/G++ please drop me a line to let me know briefly
what it is? If the whole exercise gets a lot of support, I'll happily
set up more infrastructure to deal with it (wiki, blog, remote access,
whatever Bell Labs would rather not do themselves).

++L

PS: I prefer if you use the 9fans list, I may miss your mail if I
haven't already have entered your sender address in my whitelist. Use
your discretion.

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55 PM, wrote:

It will no doubt be useful to us folks doing work for the gov't. They
DOE has lots of apps written for GCC or Fortran -- while there may be
other methods of accommodating these applications, having them "just
work" with GCC (particularly if the GCC fortran could be part of the
port) would help us a lot. It could also serve as a baseline for
performance/efficiency comparisons with other methodologies such as
linuxemu, etc.

Similarly, I've been working with other folks at potentially using
Plan 9 (for instance with the RAMP project)

On 2008-Feb-29, at 22:02 , Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:

But none of this code will "just work" on Plan 9 (especially the
Fortran code), so what's the point?

--lyndon

That is of course true. Thing is, until one moves along, many of
these "obvious" truths will not be revealed to all interested parties,
nor will alternatives be identified. I really would like to see a
team of competent persons address this issue as carefully as it
deserves. Consider that this has become a non-issue in the world of
Wintel/GNU-Linux by blocking any alternative development paths,
including Plan 9's only slight eccentricities.

++L

My interpretation of what you're saying is that I ought to wrap up
what I have in a format that can be installed successfully and more or
less effortlessly, then present myself as the "maintainer" and get on
with tracking the more recent releases.

Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of effort required catching up with
the missing documentation that would make the project more readily
supported, namely the binary formats dhog implemented to match GCC's
different function interfacing.

On 2008-Feb-29, at 22:52 , lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

But these are the stampeding herd of lemmings that discover, at the
last minute, they aren't supposed to (and can't) dive over the cliff
of popular myth. Do you want to become their path of last resort?

--lyndon (applying duct tape to the doors and windows)

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

Why do you say that?

ron

http://www.mpqc.org/

ron

On 2008-Feb-29, at 23:11 , ron minnich wrote:

The lack of a F95 compiler in /bin? (If you have one in house, that's
cheating.)

On 2008-Feb-29, at 23:12 , ron minnich wrote:

Where are the Plan 9 bits? (Seriously.)