PDP-10 backend for gcc

[lars brinkhoff]

Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au> writes:
> Michael Meissner wrote:
> > Given this byte pointer-ness has been in the compiler
> > since its inception, I suspect you will find
> > undocumented assumptions rife throughout the compiler.
> 
> You suspect correctly.  I once ported gcc/g++ 2.5.8 to a
> bit-addressable machine.  A machine where you have to add
> 8 to an address register to advance it by a byte.
> 
> I found thirty or forty instances of this byte == 1
> assumption, and basically the only way of tracking
> them down was working backwards from incorrect
> code generation.

Isn't it about time gcc was enhanced to support "weird" pointers?