Subject: Re: [Fwd: a proposal for next major (5.x)]
To: Garrett D'Amore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com>
Date: 09/07/2006 17:34:23
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:21:49PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Gcc and the gnu tools don't support this platform and is unlikely to
> > ever do in a reasonable manner. There are a separate toolchain to
> > compile the system. And I don't feel to try to define "boot" :-)
> > The root file system issue is a challenge though. Finding a way
> > to use a 32-bit filesystem on a 36-bit hardware :-)
> Frankly, that the challenge exists or not is not interesting to me. To
> me, this problem is one that is either going to be fixed or it isn't.
> If it isn't, then why bother having pdp10 in-tree?
I think there is considerable value to having a port to an architecture
that does not have a power-of-two word size, just from a portability
point of view. And the universe of available hardware for pdp10 is
sufficiently small that it just isn't (and never will be) that much
code to deal with.
I would like to see the pdp10 PCC-based toolchain somehow be integrated
into build.sh. That, too, isn't much code, and it can also compile the
i386 port, I believe; there's considerable value to regularly building
our tree with more than one compiler. Because Caldera released all the
required parts under a BSD-style license it seems basically certain
that this is OK, but I think we are currently awaiting the end of the
idiotic IBM/SCO litigation before incorporating that code into our tree,
on a "belt and suspenders" basis.