[Coco] gcc-coco revisited
james at skwirl.ca
Fri Oct 31 12:32:00 EST 2003
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, David wrote:
> I haven't attempted a compile yet. I just noted that the patch worked -
> although the "obsolete" addition placed the "| m6809-* |" addition in a
> "non-alphabetical" location.
Yeah, but that's the easiest sort of thing to fix. :)
> > There may be gcc 3.3 features that might not be supported...
> > heck, there may even be 3.1 not supported...
> That is a definite possibility (with 3.1, even). If there are - with
> either version - I'm sure they can be worked out if we continue to work
> with it.
> Actually, it might be a bit safer to stick with 3.1.
I definitely advocate sticking with 3.1. It's stable, it's tested, and I
think the main reason for moving to 3.3, for anyone else, is for newer C++
template support, and the new ABI that everyone's moving to, also for C++.
We don't really need different name mangling, because we wont be
interoperating with other C++ compilers. In fact, I think the names only
appear in object files.
> I played around with this a bit, "m6809.md"? I don't think it would take
> a lot to get it "near-perfect".
Yeah, that's the machine description file. That's where you'd need to add
support for the DP register, if you plan on making those modifications.
> >I'd also like to see
> > some soft-float support in there. Anyone here know the IEEE standard?
> From glancing through the files, I thought this was already set up. If
> not, we definitely need this.
I don't think it is. It's be nice, but I don't think we can reasonably
support 32-bit IEEE floats, which is what most software expects. Well, I
imagine we could, it would just be a big pain.
More information about the Coco