This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
QNX Port
- From: Andy Olson <olsona at uswest dot net>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:41:57 -0700
- Subject: QNX Port
- Organization: little-or-none
I have some questions regarding GCC and QNX Neutrino RTP 6.1.0.
QNX maintains their own port of (currently) GCC 2.95.3 which they use as
their system compiler. This a UNIX like RTOS, with ELF etc. so it is a
fairly simple port. Unfortunately, there were several things about this
port which interfered with my ability to do useful work: hard coded
paths in the specs, Dinkumware C++ libraries (that were not fully
functional), lots of "Internal Compiler Error" (but oddly it works on
Linux...), and a half broken multilib'ed installation that made getting
exceptions, debug, and shared libraries to all work reliably difficult.
This in turn made getting other C++ source code I needed to port
difficult.
I then downloaded the source distribution of their port. I was
eventually able to get it to work, but it was ugly (mostly due to having
GCC/Dinkumware in /usr already). My interest lies not in minimizing
library size, nor in squeezing every last ounce of performance out of
optimizer, nor in the ARM, PPC, or other processors than i386.
Therefore, I was able to distill out the very minimal configuration
changes, and target macros needed to port the stock GNU GCC 2.95.3 tree
to QNX. This one configures, builds, and installs, either native or
cross, exactly like the Solaris and Linux ports I am used to. I
included the minimum changes to the compiler itself, since I am
interested in this port having behaving the same was as the other more
common i386 targets.
Now the questions:
1) The "new" config.guess script guesses "x86-pc-nto-qnx". Should this
be corrected to "i386-pc-nto-qnx"? It seems that all the other "pc"
ports do.
2) Is the 2.95.3 branch still maintained? Or has all focus shifted to
the 3.0 branch? If so, can (or should) a patch be submitted?
3) If not 2, is it considered "bad form" to make a patched tree (or the
patches) available over the net? There are people who would like to try
this port, in order to get other applications to port.
Thanks for reading this longish message,
Andy Olson