Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 03:04:58 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Replacing gcc as the system compiler (was Re: Fix for undefined "__error" and discussion of shared object versioning) Message-ID: <19980528030458.00490@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199805280034.CAA17560@ceia.nordier.com>; from Robert Nordier on Thu, May 28, 1998 at 02:34:36AM %2B0200 References: <19980527225647.36082@follo.net> <199805280034.CAA17560@ceia.nordier.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 02:34:36AM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: > Eivind Eklund wrote: > > Have you looked closely at XANDF? I'm seeing two real hurdles (beyond > > inertia) in using this as our main compiler: The use of asm() for some > > macros in the kernel, and the use of linker sets. What do you think > > our chance of working around these are? > > I think we can find reasonable ways over the technical hurdles. > Possibly, though, we need to commit to supporting TenDRA as a secondary > compiler initially, with a change 6-12 months down the line, if things > work out. We have to support it for a while before switching, at least. The first step is getting the entire tree to build. > >From a few tests here, it is starting to look as though the trans386 > optimization needs additional work. I know that some of the code I > haved looked at was highly-optimized, so the slow times may be fairly > readily correctable. What kind of optimizations are you missing? I think there might be additional ANDF->ANDF optimizations we might be able to grab hold of from the old OSF projects; they're marked as 'freely available'. If what you're missing is high-level optimizations, this might be a good way to go. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980528030458.00490>