OPENCORES.ORG

Since UC's gcc-3.4 has what's thought to be the best mix of OC and
UC compiler we'll use that to continue development. For the gcc-3.2.3 
series i'll commit Heiko's backport patch. This way we the unified
compiler:
	- stable version gcc-3.2.3 (got by Heiko's patch)
	- development gcc-3.4

I think we should also work on merging the or32 port into
official gcc tree. Pablo could you send just the or32 patch for gcc-3.4,
so we can update it if neccessery and send it to gcc maintainers.

regards,
p.

* Heiko Panther (heiko.panther@w...) wrote:
> 
> >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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/openrisc