This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:33:21 -0500
- Subject: Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
> From: Robert Dewar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> I agree that the numbers may be a little misleading, but merely meant to
>> emphasize that although <= 16-bit processors may not be that glamorous, they
>> are still represent the workhorses of the industry, and although may not be
>> appropriate to host OS's such as Unix/Linux, are significant enough, and
>> benefit from cross compiler support on such platforms that they should not
>> be disregarded as being insignificant. (and somewhat paradoxically, may
>> actually help GCC maintain it's target neutral architecture support, to the
>> benefit of all).
> But GCC fully supports most of these chips, and always has. I do not
> understand what your point is here. All we noted was that you could not
> *host* the gcc compiler on such chips, something which you agree is
> not appropriate.
I suspect we're not referring to the same thread of context; I made the
comment in response to: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00084.html
which I didn't interpret as referring to the portability of the compiler,
but rather code compiled by it having potentially different semantics as
a function of the "target's" type-sizes, potentially leading to the
non-portability of code between 32/non-32 bit int targets, which wouldn't
be a good thing, nor should be disregarded by presuming small non-32 bit
int targets are relatively insignificant; however if I misunderstood the
context, I do apologize for my then confusing response.