Wouldn't it be easier to start with a version of PropGCC that already supports the P1? This would have all the necessary mods to handle the PASM quirks, and it also has some modifications for the P2.
@"Dave Hein" Aha! I looked back at the P1 modified binutils and found the magic line to add chars to the symbol list. Back to '#' as usual :-)
I certainly started with the gcc4 port details. Perhaps it would have been better to try to move up one major version at a time, but I made the calculated choice to jump straight to present.
As a personal preference, I would much rather see this port end up in upstream GCC/Binutils. The original P1 port used non-GPL code in a few places. I don't believe such code would be accepted. This is primarily why I started from the mainline branch.
As a personal preference, I would much rather see this port end up in upstream GCC/Binutils. The original P1 port used non-GPL code in a few places. I don't believe such code would be accepted. This is primarily why I started from the mainline branch.
You mean you can't upstream code to GCC/binutils if it has a less restrictive license than GPL? Ugh.
Hmm, it seems I'm incorrect. IANAL, but it appears MIT code may be included in GPL code and released under the GPL. The copyright notices just have to remain in the MIT-licensed files. What doesn't work is releasing GPL+MIT as MIT.
The support libraries could also live separately and be pulled in as part of building the tools.
Comments
Mike
I certainly started with the gcc4 port details. Perhaps it would have been better to try to move up one major version at a time, but I made the calculated choice to jump straight to present.
The support libraries could also live separately and be pulled in as part of building the tools.
I do not write compilers, I am just using them, so I admire the work you put in there and want just to cheer you up a bit!
Enjoy!
Mike