From: dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (Don Nichols (DoN.))
Newsgroups: comp.sys.3b1
Subject: Re: Anybody for a compiler?
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:53:19 GMT
Organization: D and D Data, Vienna Virginia

In article <1992Aug11.172509.12300@picarefy.picarefy.com> jwbirdsa@picarefy.picarefy.com (James W. Birdsall) writes:
>
>   I know somebody who has written a heavily-optimizing compiler for the
>680x0 family. It currently is better than gcc and he's still working on it.
>If there is enough interest, he would be willing to port it to the 3B1 for
>us. Since this compiler is a commercial venture for him, it wouldn't be
>free. But I, for one, could use a hot compiler for the 3B1 and given the
>difficulty of getting gcc running, I'm willing to pay a bit for a prefab
>package which is better anyway.

	I would have e-mailed, but there are some questions which perhaps
should be considered by the group, and perhaps other questions added.

	First:  An optimizing compiler is a very heavy memory user.  One of
the problems with gcc on a 3B1 is that large program segments exhaust
virtual memory space on the machine.  (E.G. gcc 1.37 or 1.38 compiling one
part of the groff sources can only succeed if the optimizer is turned off for
that module.)  Does he know the actual virtual memory limits that he will be
faced with, or does he think, as I once did, that it could be expanded by
giving more swap space.

	Second:	Is it K&R, ANSI, C++?  each step up adds to the size of the
compiler, and brings you closer to the problems encountered by gcc.  I would
probably prefer a compiler which could be told whether to deal with ANSI or
K&R versions of code (or even better, one which could figure out on its own
which it was dealing with :-)

	Third:  Considering how many of us have multiple machines, would the
software be licensed for a site, or per machine.  (After all, these machines
are not being used for heavy commercial work, and may fail at any time, so
the ability to have the compiler run on multiple machines that a given
purchaser man own (perhaps with commitment to remove it from any machine we
sell, unless we sell the software with it, in which case we remove it from
all remaining machines that we own.  With gcc, this isn't a problem.  With
commercial software it can be.

	Fourth:  Will it come with libraries and header files for those who
can't find the development system?  This is the major limitation for some
users/machines.  (Can we get the ability to distribute the header files
which came from AT&T, and which are a necessary description of the machine
to the compiler. - This is an AT&T problem, not under your friend's control,
but it needs to be resolved if we are going to put a compiler on a system
without the development system.  There will also need to be an assembler and
a loader/linker, which normally come with the development system, *if you
have it*.)

>   If you have any interest, please let me know. If you could include how
>much it would be worth to you, that would help everybody know whether we're
>all on the same wavelength. Thanks!

	I'd probably be willing to put in around $200.00 to add the compiler
to a system which already had the development system, more if it could be
added to a system which only has the foundation set.  (I probably would go
for more if I didn't already have gcc 1.38 on the 3b1 now, and the
possibility of cross-compiling using gcc 2.2.2 on the Suns for serious
optimization.

	Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
		DoN.


-- 
Donald Nichols (DoN.)     | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
D&D Data                  |  Email: <dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
I said it - no one else   |         <nichols@nvl.army.mil>
	--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Newsgroups: comp.sys.3b1