Re: End of optimization...

  Robert@Knighten.org (Robert L. Knighten) wrote:
......
>
> Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> writes:
> > I think this ignores technology improvements which mean that it is
> > possible to cheaply generate a somewhat optimizing compiler for
> > a new chip, by just giving a machine description for the new chip.
>
> Really? I've not been designing compilers for a dozen years now, but I
> haven't seen any evidence that it has really gotten particularly easier. And
> it certainly wasn't cheap back then, and the result was not even "somewhat
> optimizing". Retargetable compilers fit very closely to the UNCOL myth our
> moderator just exposed.


Well, I missed much of this thread, but I did a gcc port to a
specialized CPU (a network packet processor for a router engine - 512
words of memory (all directly addressable), 4 pointer registers, 2k
instruction words). The compiler, assembler and linker were
functional in 2 man-months (4 calendar months). The compiler was used
to write EXACTLY one program - the routing protocols for ethernet,
FDDI, et al. There was no OS on this box.


So, I believe that retargetable compilers are not a myth....


--
  --
Alan Lehotsky <apl@alum.mit.edu>
Quality Software Management
978-287-0435 Office
978-808-6836 Cell

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.