From: rittle@hew2.cs.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: GCC Problem!!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:49:55 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

prowed@sci.kun.nl (Patrick Atoon) writes:
>rittle@hew2.cs.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) writes:
>>parker_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>>>I have just got GCC but don't have the mathieeesingbas library!
>>
>>Well, you don't have mathieeesingbas.library because you don't have
>>2.0.  What are you waiting for?  Time to upgrade your OS.

>Nonono. Time to upgrade (?) the gcc source. I haven't looked into the source
                 ^^^^^^^  ^ correct, you really meant downgrade :-)
>yet, but there must be a reason why the compiler asks for 2.0 libraries.

There is a reason.  It is because gcc depends upon ixemul.library which
needs that library.

>The person who compiled gcc for the Amiga simply had a 2.0 machine, and if
>someone would be willing and able to compile it on a 1.3 machine, the other
>half(?) of the Amiga-community would thank him/her.

Taking into account the amount of work Markus has done, it may take quite
a bit of work to regenerate a gcc and standard library that was free of
even this one 2.0 library.  It is not as simple as recompiling.  Basically
whether a given piece of software will work under 1.3 and 2.0 as opposed to
just 2.0 is a function of the source code and not under which OS is was
compiled (you seem to state otherwise in your message).

I'm sure Markus could do it.  I'm sure I could do it.  But it isn't worth
my time or effort since I don't support OS 1.3 anymore.  Never will again.
In fact, I will never again release a program for the Amiga that does
more than print ``fubar:  Need AmigaOS Release 2.04\n'' under pre-2.04.

I really don't know what Markus' reason is, but he claimed in email that
he wants to support 1.3 (at least he stated at one time that he doesn't
want gcc to be OS 2.0 only, which to me states the same thing...  :-).
If that is true, I don't understand why he would use this OS 2.0
library...  But there does seem to be an inconsistency in there
somewhere.  :-)  I believe that Markus also mentioned that said
library could be made available under OS 1.3 if C= so desired.  I would
guess that they (C=) have their reasons for not wanting to release said
library for use under OS 1.3 (to prod people to upgrade perhaps if nothing
else :-).

Think of upgrading to OS 2.0 as the cost of using gcc2.0 on the Amiga.

Is there a good reason why you can't upgrade?  [EMail, if you respond to
this item, I can form a followup post if I get many interesting answers
to this question.]

>How did the person from who the Amiga-gcc came compile the source? If it was
>on a Unix-machine, even I might be able to do it. If it was on an Amiga,
>things look bad for me *smirk*... If anyone can inform me on how to make or
>better, obtain an 1.3 gcc, I'd be very happy. :-)

OK, how to make a gcc2.0 that is usable under OS 1.3.  Since gcc2
proper doesn't depend upon any OS 2.0 stuff, you *don't* need to rebuild
it.  You do need to recompile the support library as follows:

1. Find an Amiga machine running OS 2.04 with a reasonable amount of disk
   space.
3. Obtain all the recent packages that Markus has released related to
   ixemul.library and gcc2.0.
4. Obtain (if needed) sksh and dmake.
5. Modify sources related to ixemul.library to remove all dependencies on
   the libraries not available under OS 1.3.  I believe that there may be
   two such libraries: mathieeesingtrans.library and mathieeesingbas.library.
 [NOTE: step 5 may take quite a bit of work.  Gee, ever wonder why it was
  used instead of coding something from scratch?]
6. Recompile and transport to 1.3 system and use...

[how'd I do Markus? :-]

Regards and good luck (even though I don't agree that a gcc2 that works
under OS 1.3 is a great thing, I wish you luck in building one),
Loren