|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:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Norman Ramsey)|
|Date:||29 Dec 2005 14:12:20 -0500|
|Organization:||Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts|
|Posted-Date:||29 Dec 2005 14:12:20 EST|
Kim Lux <email@example.com> wrote:
>We are attempting to retarget the sdcc ( http://sdcc.sourceforge.net/)
>open source compiler to a new processor. (Freescale 68HC9S12X)...
>To date, the best potential solutions I've seen is VPO...
>The thing I like about VPO is its use of rtl as the input to the
>backend, during optimization, during register assignment and during
>opcode selection. GCC uses rtl, but not quite like VPO does.
>Is anyone interested in developing a VPO like backend ?
The back end of our Quick C-- compiler (www.cminusminus.org) is based
on VPO. Like VPO, we use and optimize RTLs. We also use the dataflow
optimization combining framework developed at U of Washington.
Caveat #1: like gcc, the compiler itself is a pig and will not run
effectively on a small machine.
Caveat #2: we almost certainly lack the optimizations needed to
produce good code for unusual hardware---but I am quite interested in
moving forward in that direction.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.