From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Lipe To: Joel Sherrill Cc: Neal Becker , law@cygnus.com, egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: intel 960 support Was: pentium? Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 08:39:00 -0000 Message-id: <19971001103650.47776@dgii.com> References: X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg00021.html Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Neal Becker wrote: > > > On a related subject - we use also use i960 here. I have to use the > > intel version, because they have added a number of features. > > Unfortunately, their version is pretty out-of-date, and I'm not sure > > they're maintaining it. Any plans to incorporate any of intel's i960 > > improvements? Intel released version a major overhaul of the tools about a year or so ago. By that time, my involvement with i960 was long over. I recall in late '95, perhaps early '96 doing a big shootout between the Cygnus progressive compiler of that era and the Intel tools (which I recently took great delight in removing, so I can't tell you the version number, but it was < 4.0). It was about a draw. The Intel version contained some chip-specific things for the JK and JA and could therefore dhrystone about 2-3% better. However, the Cygnus version would actually work given any non-trivial input. :-) > Specifically what features are missing in egcs? Gosh, I can't recall. There were (obviously) chip-specific optimizations present that the Cygnus/FSF version didn't have. It knew more about the pipelines. The linker knew how to do jump to a jump sorts of optimizations. Nothing earthshattering that I recall. The thing I do recall was the that the Intel version wasn't very reliable and was always having to look over its shoulder. RJL