Re: [9fans] splitting the compiler

[forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

oh yes, i'd forgotten about the Clipper.
i did Ka Kc and Kl for the Fairchild/Intergraph Clipper chip in a week
(1992/3 Plan 9), but i wasn't working very hard.  the Plan 9 assembler
is nearly always at most an afternoon's effort.  the time for the
compiler varies quite a bit.  the Clipper architecture was
straightforward.  the compiler was easy.
most of the time was spent on the linker.  Kl got to
compensate for all the processor pipeline/scoreboard bugs.  dreadful.
nice architecture but buggy implementation.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2358 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] splitting the compiler
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:53:08 GMT
Message-ID: <87bse9h7ni.fsf@becket.becket.net>

ozan s yigit <oz@blue.cs.yorku.ca> writes:

> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net> writes:
> 
> > I'm pretty familiar with GCC internals, and it's pretty darn
> > portable.  But perhaps there's a whole level of portability I'm
> > missing.
> 
> original poster meant retargeting (i think). with (say) lcc, all one has
> to worry about is a relatively straight-forward code generator. a student
> targeted it for ns32000 in about a week. i would expect no more time for
> 8c, but estimate three to six months for gcc.

Hrm, I retargeted GCC (back in the days of version 1) for the old
Clipper chip in about a month.

Thomas