On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, David Schmenk wrote:
But I would have expected it. GCC is designed to be easily adaptable, unlike all the previous compilers that were written specifically forRebecca Bettencourt wrote:On 2009-01-03 20:01:07 -0800, David Schmenk <dschmenk@YUCH.gmail.com> said:mdj wrote:On Jan 3, 3:52 pm, David Schmenk <dschm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Another important piece to consider is the development environment. Writing a core multitasking kernel isn't particularly difficult, but having tools such as compilers and debuggers is a large part of the project - sometimes larger than the kernel itself. If you want to make it open source, you'll want to find a tool suite that can be made easily available. Do you want to self-host or do you want to cross-compile? Determination of the tools might even help dictate the design and complexity of the kernel.The reliance on a commercial tool chain has always been an impediment to IIgs development... Well, that plus the 5 manuals you'll need to buy. I guess there's Merlin 16, but a non-Unixy toolchain just seems 'wrong' nowadays MattSo who is going to add 65816 support to gcc ;-)Found it: http://oric.free.fr/COMPILERS/gcc6502.src.tgz :)Too funny. I didn't even bother doing a Google search thinking "nobody would do such a thing." It isn't a complete solution, but possibly a start for a 65816 port, possibly using ca65 (from cc65) as the backend.Dave...
a specific CPU. It's used all the time for development work, it's easier to adapt it to a new CPU than start from scratch.Since I know GCC has been adapted to such "oddball" CPUs like the 6809 (it's not oddball, but had a relatively brief life coming in at the end of the 8bit CPUs and after 16bit CPUs had arrived, and it never sold as well as other 8bit CPUs, no matter how much better it was) I'd expect someone
already would have fixed it for the 65816. One needed tools for that CPU, and since it was even more an "oddball" than the 6809, the tools were likely scarcer. Michael