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: Backend for PicoBlaze

I suggest that before you do anything else, you figure out how to pass
arguments to functions and figure out an instruction sequence which performs
signed comparison.

Thaks for your comments. I start to think it is actally more complicated that
I had first thought. I must admit that I currently don't fully understand all of
your comments, but I am sure that this will get better when I read the
documentation a few times ...

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

Good question :) On a medium sized FPGA there could run more than 10 instances
of PicoBlaze doing different stuff. Though the code for one core may be only little,
the total amount of code could be quite large.

Somebody is currently developing a c-compiler for the PicoBlaze, but it does not
seem to be open source and if I would write my code in C, then I need a reliable
tool chain.

It could still be overkill to write a backend for this kind of core I must admit. The
reason why I ask is, that I need to decide what is more time consuming. Writing the
backend, or doing everything in machine language...And of course I wanted to
know if some of you are already working with PicoBlaze but have decided not
to write a backend and what the reasons are.


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