On 2019-05-20, sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com <sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Sadly, gcc-4.7 does not have an aarch64 backend and it's a pain to
> configure
> without breaking anything.
I wonder what the state of ARM/aarch64-4.7-branch is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/branches/ARM/aarch64-4.7-branch/
It doesn't look like this branch is exported in the git mirror, but
maybe if I can figure out git-svn, I can merge it into my branch.
> Last time I tried to bootstrap, gcc 8 was not compiling with gcc 4.7 on
> x86_64,
> did you test it with gcc 9?
Yes, I tested building gcc-9.1 with gcc-4.7.4 built by my compiler. I
have not tried gcc-8.
> What you say is good news, I may be able to add again a "gnu C" bootstrap to
> my
> custom distro (may burn some sh scripts to kill the GNU autotools in gcc
> 4.7
> then).
At least gcc tracks the autotools-generated files in the repository,
so you don't actually need them installed to build.
> You can replace inline asm:
> - machine code from an independant assembler, for big asm chunks.
> - with many extension keywords ("intrinsics"). A good idea is to make
> addition of a keyword with their "machine code conversion" kind of
> pluggable: I know it would have many limitations (llvm is literally
> brain diarhea on this) but it can circumvent many inline asm snippets
> this way. linux would be the primary target for this.
> - to a certain extend, you could patch the target source code if
> its authors are fine with it, (asm->plain and simple C, or
> C11->simpler C).
The issue is for lower level code that can't be written in C, for
example making system calls. I don't think inline asm will be too
difficult to implement in QBE. For the most part I think it can be
treated similarly to a function call, but with a special calling
convention.
> I really need to check Quentin's QBE again.
Yes, it has improved a lot in the past few months.
> What you do is great work, keep going while real life let you.
Thanks!
Received on Tue May 21 2019 - 08:12:04 CEST