🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, things seem to have all worked out; a big thanks to Michael for
pointing me in the right direction.

It turns out, Michael, that I didn't need to edit Makefile at all to
include the correct specs, but config.g++ did need the touchup.  That
patch follows; I was going to include the touchup I had to do by hand
as part of the automated procedure but I didn't see a ready way of
doing that.  The hand edit was to tm.h (-> config/tm-sun3-nfp+.h) so
that it included tm-sun3+.h rather than tm-sun3.h and thus picks up
the right crt0+.o.

The following patches are necessary to get LINK_SPEC right for gcc.c;
I am certain about the patch for my build, but am not as positive
about the one above it.  I think all Sun3-os4 definitions should probably
be changed but I don't have an fpa to check whether it is fine as is;
I rather suspect not because the linker shouldn't care about nfp, fpa
or m68881.

*** /appl/life1/gnu/g++/config.g++.orig	Thu May 18 23:51:45 1989
--- /appl/life1/gnu/g++/config.g++	Thu May 18 23:55:28 1989
***************
*** 125,138 ****
  		;;
  	sun3-os4 | sun-3-os4)
  		cpu_type=m68k
! 		sed 's/-e start//' < config/xm-sunos4.h > config/xm-sunos4+.h
  		configuration_file=xm-sunos4+.h
  		machine_type=sun3
  		;;
  	sun3-nfp-os4 | sun-3-nfp-os4)
  		cpu_type=m68k
! 		sed 's/-e start//' < config/xm-sunos4.h > config/xm-sunos4+.h
! 		configuration_file=xm-sunos4.h
  		machine_type=sun3-nfp
  		;;
  	sun3-fpa-os4 | sun-3-fpa-os4)
--- 125,138 ----
  		;;
  	sun3-os4 | sun-3-os4)
  		cpu_type=m68k
! 		sed 's/-e start/-e __start/' < config/xm-sunos4.h > config/xm-sunos4+.h
  		configuration_file=xm-sunos4+.h
  		machine_type=sun3
  		;;
  	sun3-nfp-os4 | sun-3-nfp-os4)
  		cpu_type=m68k
! 		sed 's/-e start/-e __start/' < config/xm-sunos4.h > config/xm-sunos4+.h
! 		configuration_file=xm-sunos4+.h
  		machine_type=sun3-nfp
  		;;
  	sun3-fpa-os4 | sun-3-fpa-os4)

Dave
--
 (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
 (error "UUCP not spoken here.  Long bang paths unlikely to get mail replies.")