Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Robert Roessler<robertr@...>:
>> So, first, is anyone interested in a port NOT based on gcc and friends?
> If there are people working on non-gcc toolchains that can fix issues
> as they come up, I think not being gcc-only is a perfectly valid goal.
> Overall, I think this is really commandable effort -- it is good to
> see Windows getting some love. :)
> Re. specific issues:
> * gas reputedly supports Intel syntax too, so maybe we can just
> switch the syntax over?
While that appears to be the case (gas supporting Intel syntax with
".intel_syntax"), there is more to assembler source than opcodes... ;)
... there is the whole philosophy, whether a CPP pass is available /
expected, basic capabilities, etc. I am really not sure that a single
source file *can* please both gas and [the MS assembler] MASM. I am
thinking that since a single version of any particular assembler source
file is desirable, NASM may be a way to go. Like gas, it can run on and
target all of the OSes of interest.
> * Can you retain GNU make while kicking out gcc? If not, well,
> portable Makefiles
> are certanly possible... just painful.
I wouldn't dream of losing GNU Make! :) I mentioned MSYS + VS2008/VC9
as the build environment for this project on Windows 7 x64, and good old
GNU Make 3.81 is right there.
But I will need to fix things like the ".o" assumption and make it
> * Splitting out compiler differences into separate files sounds like
> the cleaner
> solution in most cases. Possibly many of them can be made to
> disappear entirely
> with a sufficiently cleaver cc-gcc.c and cc-msvc.c? That said, if
> in some cases
> a local #ifdef is much easier than other alternatives and not too
> bad -- we could
> probably live with a few.
All right, I will see how this works. :)