This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] MIPS32 DSP intrinsics
On Jun 2, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Why is this not reasonable to ask of instruction sets implemented in a
free software compiler?
What's next, requiring that we have ABI documents, scheduling and
timing documents, machine code documents? You require it, then you
get someone saying, you can't put this in, because the description on
page 94 is wrong, where does it end?
Want to play with gcc, where's your papers, we need to see your
papers?! [ oh, wait, yeah, I guess we already do that ]
Look at it this way, we serve the needs of mips.com, they make lots
of money, they hire more people to work on gcc, life is good. We
don't serve their needs, they go away, do their own compiler, and we
get no help from them. We get to pick what we want, we should pick
carefully. People should examine carefully the results of these
types of decisions. Look at Intel's i960 gcc compiler. Look at
Moto's gcc compiler. I'd say both were failures, let's just avoid
engineering that type of solution. It is better to bring them on
board, even if they lead the edge, as then we have a leading edge
compiler. If we wait until 2 years after the chips are out (when did
gcc get mmx/altivec support?), we are not a cutting edge compiler.
Hint, I'm going to argue for the cutting edge compiler, it _is_
better, better for us, better for gcc, better for mips.com customers,
better for free software.