Re: NEW: lang/gpc

On 7/29/18 2:03 AM, Brian Callahan wrote:
>
> On 07/20/18 21:00, Brian Callahan wrote:
>>
>> On 07/13/18 22:37, Brian Callahan wrote:
>>> Hi ports --
>>>
>>> Recently, I needed a Pascal compiler for arm. I am not smart enough
>>> to port Free Pascal to arm, though it seems like such a task is
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Instead, I made a port of the old GNU Pascal compiler. While gpc is
>>> perfectly usable, and was able to compile the Pascal code I needed
>>> it to, it has not kept up with gcc itself; the "latest" gcc that gpc
>>> can run on top of is 4.3.5.
>>>
>>> What I did for this port was resurrect gcc-4.2.4 from ports (as
>>> gcc-4.2.4 is one of the supported gcc versions for gpc, and the
>>> latest one we had a port of) and patched gpc on top of it. Hence the
>>> self-hosted tarball.
>>>
>>> The port then does a non-bootstrap build of gpc, fakes it, then I
>>> rip out all the gcc stuff so that we're just left with the gpc
>>> compiler and its headers and libraries. Because no one wants a copy
>>> of gcc-4.2.4 lying around, and gpc doesn't need it.
>>>
>>> This works for me on amd64 (linked with lld), i386, and armv7.
>>>
>>> Additionally, I discovered a kludge that allows gpc to link with
>>> lld--so this port is "future proof" in that regard.
>>>
>>> Is gpc something we would want in ports, despite its age? I will
>>> need the Pascal on armv7 setup for the foreseeable future, so I am
>>> willing to maintain it. And it has the minor side benefit of opening
>>> up a new language for (most) of our exotic archs.
>>>
>>> ~Brian
>>>
>>
>> I thought about this, and since I am going to need it and it stays
>> out of the way of any other compiler, and I'm willing to maintain it
>> (where maintain = ensure it continues to build with clang and link
>> with lld), I would like to put this in. So now looking for OKs.
>>
>> Here's a new tarball, now with powerpc support as well.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> ~Brian
>>
>
> Ping.
>

Ping. Also tested now on sparc64.

~Brian