|Create a new compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-04-13)|
|Re: Create a new compiler email@example.com (Basile STARYNKEVITCH) (2003-04-15)|
|Re: Create a new compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-04-20)|
|From:||email@example.com (Dave Boyle)|
|Date:||20 Apr 2003 17:53:12 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||20 Apr 2003 17:53:12 EDT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Ming-zhi Lin) wrote in message news:03-04-031...
> I try to create a compiler for a 16-bit DSP with 8-bit microprocessor.
> There are three free candidates for the front end for this compiler,
> LCC, SDCC and GCC.
> But I think GCC is too complex, therefore I prefer to choose LCC or
> I have several questions about LCC and SDCC:
> 1. Which back end of them is easy to retarget?
> 2. Which generated machine code of them is more efficient?
> 3. Which of them is stabler?
> 4. The SDCC supports inline assembly code. How about the LCC?
> Thanks for your help.
> All of yor opinions will be great helpful to me to evaluate which one
> is suitable.
Perhaps someone in the LCC newsgroup would be able to give you an idea
of the difficulty/ease with which such a back end could be written for
As for the efficiency of generated machine code: I think LCC produces
better code than many other C compilers when optimisations aren't
enabled. When optimisations are enabled I think LCC probably suffers
relative to other compilers (NB. this belief is based on comments made
in Hanson and Fraser's book and might not be valid for the more recent
versions of the compiler!)
LCC doesn't support inline assembly code.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.