[Coco] gcc-coco revisited

[James Dessart]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Bill Cousert wrote:

> 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?

The way this would usually be done with gcc is to make two separate
targets, one called coco-rsdos and another called coco-os9 (or whatever.)
I think it would be best to follow that form, that way the compiler and
tools can be configured to operate seamlessly.

> 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.

You're certain it works?  In other words, have you tested it to make sure
it compiles?  There may be gcc 3.3 features that might not be supported...
heck, there may even be 3.1 not supported...

I'd love to have the time to work on a "perfect" 6809 machine description
file, making sure that all ops are taken care of.  I'd also like to see
some soft-float support in there.  Anyone here know the IEEE standard?

James