This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
how much work is it to port a backend from 2.95.3 to head: was Re:define_delay working only when optimization on!
- From: Spundun Bhatt <spundun at ISI dot EDU>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Mar 2003 16:08:06 -0800
- Subject: how much work is it to port a backend from 2.95.3 to head: was Re:define_delay working only when optimization on!
- Organization:
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0303182114280.18670-100000@dair.pair.com>
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 18:35, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2003, Spundun Bhatt wrote:
> > I just added a define_delay statement to my machine description file
> > (derived from rs6000-2.95.3).
>
> I suggest you use the CVS trunk, updating once in a while when
> gcc-regression shows no regressions, carefully saving the tree
> before you update.
>
The developement for this backend started some 1.5 years back. We had
decided to use the motorola altivec gcc 2.95.2 . When I started working
on this 6 months back, some porting had already taken place. Now quite a
lot of effort has already gone in to porting this backend, I was
wondering how much work it is to port a backend derived from a
motorola-derived altivec version of backend merged with 2.95.3 changes
and then worked on for another 4 months :). Are there any major api
changes or could I just put my backend directrory in the cvs head and
put another week and get rolling? I know that motorola guy made some
changes outside the backend config directory so those things I will have
to fix atleast.
Thanx a lot for your reply.
Spundun