Gpc December 2004

gpc@gnu.de

27 participants
37 discussions

Re: Re: GCC integration?
by E. Weddington 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Matt Austern wrote: > On Dec 17, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > I suppose it's time to ask: *should* Pascal integration be a goal for > 4.1? > > GCC was a much simpler compiler when it was just a C compiler. > Sure, but those days are long gone. Witness the number of languages GCC has now. At least Pascal is in the same family of languages as C (IIRC Algol-derived).

1 0

Re: Re: GCC integration?
by Thorsten Glaser 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Gabriel Dos Reis dixit: >The situation for 3.3.x is >radically different from that of 3.2.x. The files in gcc/gcc/config/ from 3.3 are radically different from 3.2, which made it a) not feasible for MirOS to upgrade to 3.3 b) not easy for gpc (if I remember the mailing list stuff correctly). //mirabile

1 0

[RESEND] Re: GCC integration?
by Thorsten Glaser 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

From: Thorsten Glaser <tg(a)66h.42h.de> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is the cause for this resend, fixed that now. To: gpc(a)gnu.de Cc: gcc(a)gcc.gnu.org Subject: [gpc] Re: GCC integration? Waldek Hebisch dixit: (cross-posted to gcc list, please reply to the gpc list) > appling the patch form `diffs' subdirectory. Going beyond that > would be mostly wasted effort, because gcc-3.4.x and coming 4.x > are different enough (so one would have to re-do the work for Exactly this is the cause for the following request of mine: Since gcc 4.0 will be out of the door not in less than two months from now, and given that gcc 4.1, which ought to solve at least the basic problems with tree-ssa etc. is not even in sight yet, I propose that there will be a gcc-3.5 release with support for Pascal, based upon gcc-3.4, current gpc and Waldek's patches. This would be great since we already had the new directory layout (what I would greatly like to see for Ada and Pascal is that their RTS moves from gcc/p/ to libgpc/ ASAP), and the gcc-3.4/3.5 specific diffs integrated into the core, while the backend patches for gcc 3.3 and older are still available (I don't think Frank is going to throw them away after the integration), and so, if you do _not_ remove the ifdefs from gcc/p/*, you could do another standalone GPC release based upon the code in the gcc-3.5 development tree. While it might also be worthwhile to integrate Hiroaki Etoh's ProPolice SSP, and probably other fixes (Apple stuff?), this would mean gcc 3.5 must be an "official" release. If the SC really is reluctant to do so, it might be feasible to do a "gpc+gcc 3.5" version, developed as a branch in the gcc cvs, but not endorsed by the SC. (Of course, if there'd be interest, one could add ProPolice to that branch as well, unless you really want it to be only for your gpc-specific work. If there is interest, I myself could try to get cvs ci access to gcc.gnu.org - I've already signed the relevant forms, and etoh has, too - and integrate the current propolice; I'm already doing this for the gcc contained in my OS at the moment). For others, developers, especially OS vendors, this would also be great, because history has shown that gcc 3.x branches tend to end after 3.x.3 or 3.x.4, and for the aforementioned reasons 4.0/4.1 will not gain wide acceptance outside of Gentoo (j/k) soon; if one were to incorporate generic 3.x bugfixes and maybe backport 4.x bugfixes into a 3.5 series, this could not only get much adoption, but maybe support from the large (e.g.) GNU/Linux vendors (Novell?). This support would lead to a faster distribution of gpc to "the masses" than releasing a standalone gpc version now and then integrating it into 4.1/4.2 ever could. Besides, support for 3.4 is "almost" done for the more common platforms; I doubt gpc will make it into mainline before it runs on almost all platforms, and having it in gcc cvs will surely help to both get more eyes on the code (Nathanael said something like this IIRC) and get these who do changes to the backend more aware of gpc. Just my 0.02 EUR, //mirabile

2 1

how to search for error address
by Francesco Bonomi 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Dear friends, I am sorry I could not find the answer to this (simple??) question: If a program halts with a message like: (error #454 at 376d8) How can I use the 376d8 address to pin-point the line that caused the error? thanks Francesco

2 1

Re: GCC integration?
by Thorsten Glaser 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Marcel Cox dixit: >2) I think doing major GPC integration work now based on GCC 3.x is >just a waste of resources There is not much to do. I integrated gpc into a BSD in-tree gcc once, and besides having to rewrite some stuff for BSD make and applying the diffs correctly, there was next to no work involved. //mirabile

1 0

Re: GCC integration?
by Thorsten Glaser 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Joseph S. Myers dixit: (gpc, SSP) >Again, features cannot be integrated in release branches before they are >in mainline, and they cannot go in mainline if their developers will not >discuss, explain and adapt them in accordance with the usual development >procedures. What about a gcc3-mainline? Development starting from 3.4 and heading towards 3.5, until gpc is mainline-ready and etoh-san has redesigned SSP for working with tree-ssa? Not having SSP for gcc4 e.g. is for the BSDs a showstopper. bye, //mirabile

1 0

Re: GCC integration?
by Thorsten Glaser 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Steven Bosscher dixit: >GCC 3.x and GCC 4.0 are internally so very different already that you >will find very few bugfixes for GCC 4.0 that you can backport to any >of the GCC 3.x releases. This one >Except that you'd be integrating with an end-of-life infrastructure. And this one >a waste of effort. Why not just work against GCC 3.4 if you really >want to stay GCC3-based? And this one are the reasons for continuing the gcc3 line IMHO. >You could make it so much easier for yourselves if you'd just skip Please note I'm neither a GCC- nor a GPC-developer. >So, one, two years from now when the GCC4 series will be mainstream >compilers, you have to start over with your integration work to keep >gpc available to the masses. Nobody said to stop integration work. It's about two things. To get stuff in at all and in the correct directories, and to adapt the code (esp. for gcc4). Start with the easier. bye, //mirabile

1 0

gpc on IBM AIX 5.3 with POWER5
by Neil Bunn 17 Dec '04

17 Dec '04

Hi, I'm trying to build gpc following the instructions on the web, and trying to build on AIX 5.3 using gcc 3.3.2 which is supported and install. When I attempt: configure --enable-languages=pascal I get: bash-2.05b# /work/gcc-3.3.2/configure --enable-languages=pascal Configuring for a powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 host. Created "Makefile" in /work/gpc-build using "mt-frag" And then the make process hangs, with bind64 taking up 50% of my cpu time for a while until I kill it. In the build directory all that is created is: Makefile mt-frag conftest.c powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 Any ideas how to get this to move forward? Regards, Neil Bunn www.ibm.com/eserver/openpower - Serious Linux for Serious Business --------------- Advisory Technical Specialist OpenPower, pSeries & Linux Solutions IBM Canada Ltd. Work: (905) 316-8406 Internet: neilbunn(a)ca.ibm.com ---------------

2 1

[ra993482@ic.unicamp.br: Spec file for GPC]
by Anja Gerwinski 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Hello, clearing up a mail folder I read only rarely (due to excess spam), I found the message below. It's of July, but maybe it is still of interest. Best Regards, Anja Gerwinski ----- Forwarded message from Ulisses <ra993482(a)ic.unicamp.br> ----- Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:09:20 +0200 Subject: Spec file for GPC From: Ulisses <ra993482(a)ic.unicamp.br> To: gpc-owner(a)gnu.de Hi, could you forward this email to your gpc mailing list? I made a spec file for gpc and I thought some people there might be interested. Regards, -- Ulisses %define name gpc %define gpcversion 20040516 %define gpcrelease 1 %define gcccoreversion 3.2.3 %define myprefix /usr/local Summary: GNU Pascal Compiler Name: %{name} Version: %{gpcversion} Release: %{gpcrelease} License: GPL Group: Development/Languages Source0: gcc-core-%{gcccoreversion}.tar.bz2 Source1: gpc-%{gpcversion}.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_builddir}/%{name}-instroot %description This package contains the GNU Pascal Compiler. %prep %setup -T -c -a 0 %setup -T -D -a 1 mv gpc-%{gpcversion}/p gcc-%{gcccoreversion}/gcc/ %build rm -rf gpc-build mkdir gpc-build cd gpc-build ../gcc-%{gcccoreversion}/configure --enable-languages=pascal --prefix=%{myprefix} make %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT cd gpc-build make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %files %defattr(-,root,root) %{myprefix}/bin/* %{myprefix}/lib/* %{myprefix}/info/* %{myprefix}/doc/* %{myprefix}/man/* %{myprefix}/share/* %changelog * Fri Jul 03 2004 Ulisses <ra993482(a)ic.unicamp.br> 20040516-1 - Initial spec file. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

module/unit interface `Gpc' could not be imported
by Leo Brewin 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Hi Folks, My apologies if this is a silly question... I've just compiled gpc-20020510 on my Red Hat 9 system and I can't seem to compile any of the demo programs (except hello.pas). Here is what I did mv gpc-20020510/p/ gcc-2.95.2/gcc/ mkdir gpc-build cd gpc-build ../gcc-2.95.2/configure --enable-language=pascal --prefix=/home/leo/local make install There were no errors during the above compilation. Next I tried the demo programs, cd ~/local/doc/gpc/demos gpc factorial.pas factorial.pas:31: module/unit interface `Gpc' could not be imported I guess there is something blindingly obvious that I have forgotten. Can anyone enlighten me please? Thanks, Leo Brewin

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

Gpc December 2004