24 Apr
2006
24 Apr
'06
5:27 a.m.
Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.
Bill
24 Apr
24 Apr
6 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to
the old unixes?
What do you mean by "old unixes"? 32V or 4BSD would be trivial. 2BSD
or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible. gcc was born in a
32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a
16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend): Both the code and
data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to
using overlays.
If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very
slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that
runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it.
A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99.
As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it
impossible to build a simple C compiler.
--
Peter Jeremy
6:33 a.m.
Bill Cunningham wrote:
Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to
the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.
Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.
Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...
Michael Davidson
[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
1:33 p.m.
Michael Davidson napisał(a):
Bill Cunningham wrote:
What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Perhaps DeJorie could help.
Andrzej
Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc
to the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.
Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.
Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...
Michael Davidson
[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
1:47 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
What about creating "old unix" version of
djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Won't work. http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states:
"3.5 Can I run it on a 286?
Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also....
A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here. Gcc doesn't care
much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit
processor, which the 286 isn't. A 386 or better CPU really is
required."
--
Peter Jeremy
2:44 p.m.
djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit
operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of
trick.
If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating
environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work. I've never heard of
anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either.
Just my 0.02c
Wesley Parish
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco(a)icpnet.pl>:
Michael Davidson napisaÅ(a):
What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Perhaps DeJorie could help.
Andrzej
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would
work
>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C
compiler working that
would
>compile todays programs. The old C compilers
can be kept for
safekeeping as
they
don't work much anymore.
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.
Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.
Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...
Michael Davidson
[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s
3:50 p.m.
Wesley Parish napisał(a):
djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit
programs in a 16-bit
operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of
trick.
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.
I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible .
BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to
be good environment for this simulator (?).
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another
console to exit.
Andrzej
7:05 p.m.
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco(a)icpnet.pl>:
Wesley Parish napisaÅ(a):
In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are
cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted. Then the files get
rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a gcc guru
nor a pdp11 guru.
djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit
programs in a 16-bit
operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS
extender
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS
extenders to pull the same
kind of
trick.
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.
I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not
impossible .
BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to
be good environment for this simulator (?).
That's good news!
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11
process on another
console to exit.
You're not the only one, either.
Wesley Parish
Andrzej
_______________________________________________
PUPS mailing list
PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
10:06 p.m.
New subject: [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco(a)icpnet.pl>:
It can't be done.
As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too
big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all
meant for large 32-bit systems.
However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made
a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it
can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much
smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still
massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
--Toby
[1] http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/info/lcc-pdp11.html
[2] http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/
Wesley Parish napisał(a):
In that case, all I can suggest is that the gcc source files are
cross-compiled to pdp11, and error messages noted. Then the files get
rewritten for the pdp11 ... I'm sorry I can't help - I'm neither a
gcc guru
nor a pdp11 guru. djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit
programs in a 16-
bit
operating environment on a 32-bit machine. go32 is Delorie's own DOS
extender
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS
extenders to pull the
same
kind of
trick.
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.
I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc
can
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not
impossible .
BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent
4.2.10 and
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it
seems to
be good environment for this simulator (?).
That's good news!
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill
pdp11 process on
another
console to exit.
You're not the only one, either.
Wesley Parish
Andrzej
_______________________________________________
PUPS mailing list
PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol
of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
_______________________________________________
PUPS mailing list
PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
25 Apr
25 Apr
12:28 p.m.
New subject: [pups] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix
Toby Thain napisał(a):
On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message :
too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged
the system BTW).
Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors
to Your disposal and You can work faster.
Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have
anyway only hobbyst license .
Andrzej
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz
<vasco(a)icpnet.pl>:
>Wesley Parish napisał(a):
>
>
>
It can't be done.
As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too
big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all
meant for large 32-bit systems.
However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made
a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it
can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much
smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still
massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
24 Apr
24 Apr
3:29 p.m.
Michael Davidson <michael_davidson(a)pacbell.net> writes:
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff. It was made just for fun, so it's
not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok.
As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape. I
haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
source tree from old cruft.
Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to
the old unixes?
Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11. 
6:53 p.m.
Lars Brinkhoff scripsit:
As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is
in good shape. I
haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
source tree from old cruft.
http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported
target, with these caveats: narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE
floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole,
does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use
define_constants, and no ELF support.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead." --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev
6816
days inactive
6818
days old
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Andrzej Popielewicz -
Bill Cunningham -
John Cowan -
Lars Brinkhoff -
Michael Davidson -
Peter Jeremy -
Toby Thain -
Wesley Parish