Re: Back end generator alternatives?

"Uncle Noah" <nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr>
28 Jan 2006 15:19:27 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Back end generator alternatives? mr.waverlye@verizon.net (Mr.E) (2006-01-26)
Re: Back end generator alternatives? nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr (Uncle Noah) (2006-01-28)
Re: Back end generator alternatives? vmakarov@redhat.com (Vladimir Makarov) (2006-01-31)
Re: Back end generator alternatives? emmel@h-e-i.de (Helmut Emmelmann) (2006-01-31)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Uncle Noah" <nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Jan 2006 15:19:27 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 06-01-083
Keywords: code, tools
Posted-Date: 28 Jan 2006 15:19:27 EST

iburg is a possible choice if you can get good licensing terms. It is
not very hard to write an .md file (machine description) similar to
those already available in LCC (actually LCC mds contain LCC-specific
procedures as well). The MIPS backend is probably a good start. Further
some additional backends for LCC exist on the web but are included in
the distribution. I recall backends for PDP11, ARM and probably 2-3
others.


Writing machine descriptions in most other retargetable compilers is
much harder (e.g. gcc, Machine-SUIF to name a few). You should look for
BSD-like licenses (or even LGPL) they are much more liberal.


Nikolaos Kavvadias

Post a followup to this message

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