From owner-freebsd-ppc Thu Jun 8 11:58: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65D037C155 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:58:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA97854; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:57:46 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:57:46 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Jake Hamby Cc: Mark Peek , freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: the abi In-Reply-To: <200006081840.LAA45708@server.manson.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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