This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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, 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 customers, better for free software.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]