Related articles |
---|
WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end lux@diesel-research.com (Kim Lux) (2005-12-08) |
Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) (2005-12-08) |
Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr (Uncle Noah) (2005-12-08) |
Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-12-11) |
Re: WANTED: One good retargettable compiler back end nr@eecs.harvard.edu (2005-12-29) |
From: | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 11 Dec 2005 19:58:04 -0500 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 05-12-016 05-12-023 |
Keywords: | code, comment |
Posted-Date: | 11 Dec 2005 19:58:04 EST |
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
(snip regarding gcc)
> 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.
I know some people recently working on a port to IBM S/370 (that is,
not XA/370 or ESA/390) have had problems getting it to run native with
ONLY about 8M bytes available. As a cross compiler it is fine.
It does seem that writing a compiler to run on small memory machines
is a lost art.
-- glen
[GCC and other Gnu programs have always assumed that they have vast amounts
of address space available. The target of GCC may have a tiny memory, but
the host better not. On the other hand, the original PDP-11 Unix C
compiler ran in about 24K bytes, with two passes and generated pretty good
code. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.