This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Backend for PicoBlaze
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 4. Stack and argument passing.
> PicoBlaze has an internal call/return stack which can't be used for
> passing arguments. How will the STACK_POINTER_REGNUM macro and the
> "push<mode>" instruction pattern be specified?
For STACK_POINTER_REGNUM you just pick one of the general purpose
registers and don't use it for anything else. You don't have to
define the push<mode> instructions, so you don't. Instead you define
ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS. If you want some registers to be callee
saved, which you probably do, then you hand generate the prologue and
epilogue instructions; with the limited address space, you will
probably want to jump to a library routine to do it.
> Very simple. An address is taken from a register or an immediate. As an
> "interesting" feature, function address can only be immediate values. I.e.
> jump tables and function pointers can't be used. Note that the GCC Internals
> documentation, says (in the section "Standard Pattern Names For
Processors without jump to register indirect suck. If instructions
and data are in the same address space, you can use self-modifying
code. Making that both thread-safe and small is a pain, but you
probably don't have to worry about threads.
> The PicoBlaze has a program storage of at most 1024 instructions and a data
> storage of 64 bytes. Is it really necessary and useful to port GCC to such a
1024 instructions? That is small.