|WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end email@example.com (Kim Lux) (2005-12-08)|
|Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end firstname.lastname@example.org (Ian Lance Taylor) (2005-12-08)|
|Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end email@example.com (Uncle Noah) (2005-12-08)|
|Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-12-11)|
|Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end email@example.com (2005-12-29)|
|From:||Ian Lance Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||8 Dec 2005 22:08:25 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||08 Dec 2005 22:08:25 EST|
Kim Lux <email@example.com> writes:
> We looked at gcc, but think it is much better suited to general
> purpose processors rather than 8/16 bit processors with limited
> registers, Harvard memory maps, etc.
I don't disagree with that. I just want to note that I and others
have successfully ported gcc to support 8 and 16 bit processors with
limited registers, Harvard memory maps, even 16-bit memory access
(e.g., no 8-bit memory access). That is, it can be done.
Actually the biggest difficulty I've seen is that the tests in the
testsuite tend to assume large memory space, 8-bit memory access,
32-bit ints, etc., so you wind up having to look at the tests
individually to see which ones will never work on your processor, and
which ones indicate actual problems.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.