Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:57:46 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@anobject.com> Cc: Mark Peek <mark@whistle.com>, freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: the abi Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000608204848.66154D-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <200006081840.LAA45708@server.manson.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jake Hamby wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > But - what do they use? Esp. as I haven't been able to connect to the
> > darwin site during ~ a week now (and that's why it's not listed). It is
> > probably sysv4, though.
>
> Darwin uses Mach-O (the Mach object format). I was going to mention this
> last night as kind of a joke option, but I guess it's a good thing I
> didn't, since it looks like not many people on the list would have gotten
> the joke. :)
>
8-)
> I'm a big MacOS X supporter right now but I don't think that Mach-O's a
> very good choice, at least since so far I haven't been able to find ANY
> documentation about the format, besides Apple's source code mods to GCC and
> binutils, and their "libmacho", which I don't consider sufficient to base
> the future of FreeBSD/ppc on. For all I know, it might be a pretty cool
> format, but unless someone on this list has a better idea where to go to
> find a solid spec for this format, I don't think we should consider it. It
> looks like it's just too different.
>
I'd vote for forgetting about it for now.
> Besides, we wouldn't be able to directly take advantage of Apple's
> modified GCC and binutils anyway, because we'd have to keep the Mach-O
> changes while backing out or disabling all of the custom NeXT mods to do
> things like search /System/Library/*.framework/Headers/ for headers and
> search /System/Library/{FrameworkName}.framework/{FrameworkName} for shared
> libs. Also, it's not like their modded GCC is 100% solid yet, as I was
> able to trip up the C++ compiler in MacOS X with a simple (17-line) test
> program that gave "Can't emit reloc {- symbol "L1$pb"} @ file address 164"
> errors. I didn't look into this very far, but my theory is that some patch
> for better Objective-C support broke something the compiler's doing for
> C++. Which reminds me: if you want REALLY good Obj-C support as a goal
> for FreeBSD/ppc, then maybe the Apple toolchain is the way to go. :)
> Still, even for that, I don't think they'll be open-sourcing all of their
> tools.. they still have some proprietary pieces to their ObjC runtime that
> I don't think are ever going to make it into Darwin.
>
Ouch. I don't want to do this.
> For FreeBSD/ppc, I vote for whatever Linux/ppc uses (SVR4, I believe).
> Not only is this going to provide the most solid (and relevant to our
> needs) toolchain, but it makes Linux ABI emulation in the kernel a little
> easier.
>
> -Jake
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ppc" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1000608204848.66154D-100000>