[Coco] gcc-coco revisited

David dbree at duo-county.com
Fri Oct 31 08:14:00 EST 2003

I'm thinking about looking back into the gcc-coco project again in an
effort to get a usable OS9 compiler.

I had experimented with it some months ago, but let it drop.  Boisy has
also worked with it a little, also, but it appears that he, too, has not
been actively working with it for a while.  I'd like to get some ideas
about the best way to go with it.

One big question in my mind is which assembler/linker is preferable?  My
original work was with the intent on compiling to rma source, and IIRC,
I did get pretty close on this before I laid it down.  Boisy worked with
going with AS.

Reasons for using rma:
1.  It's Coco - strictly nostalgic.
2.  It's coco - The rof's generated by gcc09 could be used on a real
    coco or an emulator.
3.  We already have rlink libraries

Reasons for using AS
1.  We have the source for the assembler and linker - we _do_ have a
    cross-rma, but don't have rlink disassembled yet.
2.  The "rof"s are ASCII - easy to see what's in there - easy to
    manually edit, but could be easily messed up like this, too.

The biggest problem right now is the addition of the "direct" directive
to gcc.  I'm sure it can be done, but it's going to take some studying
(for me, if I do it) to learn how to add a directive to gcc.

Another question.  Would it be best to have a single gcc09 that will
compile to RS-Dos or OS9 using a switch, or maybe a define, or just have
two separate compilers?

Although I'm sure gcc-3.1.1 has all the features that would be needed
for our needs, how about going on to gcc-3.3.1?  I've already checked
and the patch will work.

I'd sort of like to look into this again but would like to get a good
idea of what everyone would like and get some insight in what is the
best way to go.

More information about the Coco mailing list