|
Message
From: Heiko Panther<heiko.panther@w...>
Date: Fri Dec 19 14:27:38 CET 2003
Subject: [openrisc] Re: OpenRisc Digest, Vol 1, Issue 12
> But we should strive to have a common one for the majority of the
> community.
I agree a 100%. Options we have now are:
1) using Scott Furmans gcc patch. This seems to require Scott's linker
fix, we've seen eCos static constructors fail without.
2) using the University Cantabria port, which was backported by me for
gcc-3.2.3.
3) making some other fix to the opencores cvs version
4) using UC-gcc-3.4
The more reasonable options are 1 and 2, the others are just included
for completeness. 3) would mean senseless extra work that no one will
do, 4) is not an option yet, because uc-gcc-3.4 is built on a
developmental version of gcc-3.4. Maybe when gcc-3.4 gets released?
Since both options 1 and 2 are available right now, I suggest we should
choose one of them using the following criteria.
a) is the compiler bug-free? All OS maintainers and users satisfied?
b) Size of resulting binaries?
c) Speed of resulting binaries?
d) should we do the ABI change going with scott furmans version?
My comments:
a) No signs of compiler bugs with my version and eCos. Scott's also been
using his version for some time, no problems there either.
b) Got 8% smaller binary with my compiler. Only a single test case, not
a qualified survey.
c) No data.
d) No one seemed to have any substantial reasons why the ABI shouldn't
be changed. There were some concerns from Pablo Huerta, saying the ABI
change wouldn't be the best solution. Scott said the calling conventions
he's using for 64 bit values are more efficient than in the classic ABI.
Regards,
Heiko
|
 |
Browse
