[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:50:48 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Regehr [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: Arnim Littek; address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?
>
> In my opinion the advantage of llvm-avr-gcc wouldn't so much
> be better
> code (though it may be a bit better) but rather decreased compiler
> maintenance effort. The LLVM interfaces seem (1) pretty
> stable and (2)
> relatively narrow compared to gcc's.
And that decreased maintenance effort is a compelling argument.
> Someone should just do it. A hacky backend supporting only
> the megas is
> probably less than a month effort for a reasonable hacker. Then if
> initial results are promising, others will jump in to help
> and eventually
> perhaps an avr-gcc replacement would emerge.
Great! Do you have a month's worth of free time? ;-)
I sure don't at this point in time. Perhaps sometime next year I will.
> In my opinion LLVM needs a few tweaks before it's a really
> strong embedded
> compiler. For example its inliner can cause significant
> bloat even at
> -Os. But overall it is quite good. On the other hand there are the
> advantages above plus the developers are extremely responsive. For
> example in the past year I've been reporting lots of bugs in
> compilers'
> implementations of volatile. The LLVM people almost always
> fix bugs in a
> few days whereas there's at least one volatile bug that has
> sat in the gcc
> bugzilla for 6 months without even being confirmed. As a
> result LLVM is
> at present almost totally volatile-correct, gcc has a ways to go.
And their developers' responsiveness is one of the major reasons why I have
been considering it.
- [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, Colin D Bennett, 2008/11/11
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/11/11
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, Colin D Bennett, 2008/11/11
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, Arnim Littek, 2008/11/11
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/11/11
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, Joerg Wunsch, 2008/11/12
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?, John Regehr, 2008/11/13
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend?,
Weddington, Eric <=
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, David Brown, 2008/11/13
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/11/13
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, John Regehr, 2008/11/13
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/11/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, John Regehr, 2008/11/13
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/11/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Dave N6NZ, 2008/11/18
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Preston Wilson, 2008/11/18
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Ron Kreymborg, 2008/11/18
- RE: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?, Weddington, Eric, 2008/11/18