[Coco] gcc-coco revisited

[David]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:16:46AM -0500, James Dessart wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Why, yes!  Foolish of me to not think of this.

> > 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?

I haven't attempted a compile yet.  I just noted that the patch worked -
although the "obsolete" addition placed the "| m6809-* |" addition in a
"non-alphabetical" location.

> There may be gcc 3.3 features that might not be supported...
> heck, there may even be 3.1 not supported...

That is a definite possibility (with 3.1, even).  If there are - with
either version - I'm sure they can be worked out if we continue to work
with it.

Actually, it might be a bit safer to stick with 3.1.

> 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 played around with this a bit, "m6809.md"? I don't think it would take
a lot to get it "near-perfect".

>I'd also like to see
> some soft-float support in there.  Anyone here know the IEEE standard?

>From glancing through the files, I thought this was already set up.  If
not, we definitely need this.