Re: PATCH RFA: Add support for Go programming language

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Eric, Ian,

* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:06:07PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> 
> >> address@hidden AC_PROG_GO (@ovar{compiler-search-list})
> >> +Find the Go compiler to use.  Check whether the environment variable
> >> address@hidden is set; if so, then set output variable @code{GCCGO} to its
> >> +value.
> >
> > Why name the variable GCCGO?  In line with other compiler variables
> > would be something like GOC (for GO Compiler) or GOCC, that would also
> > match with GOFLAGS.  Do you expect this interface to never apply to
> > non-GCC implementations of Go?
> 
> There is another Go compiler, which is called either 6g or 8g depending
> on the target, but it works differently.  It does not use a -c option to
> compile, but instead uses a different program (6l or 8l) to link.  Also
> these tools generate .6 or .8 files rather than .o files, and the linker
> gets the libraries directly from the .6/.8 files rather than from the
> command line.  So I wasn't sure whether it made sense to use the smae
> make variable for both.
> 
> That said, I'm not wedded to GCCGO, and if y'all think it would be
> better to use GOC or GOCC, I'm fine with making the change.  It's true
> that it would be possible to write a driver program for 6g/8g which make
> them act more like gccgo, though the reverse would be harder.

Eric, do you have any input on this open question?  Have you had a
chance to look at the patch?  It otherwise seems low-danger to me, but
I wouldn't want to move forward on the Libtool sister patch without this
one cleared.

> > Just for reference, can you post the output of
> >   make check TESTSUITEFLAGS='-k go -v -x'
> >
> > with a Go compiler in $PATH?
> 
> Attached.

That looks fine to me.

Thanks,
Ralf