Re: PDP10 support

[lars brinkhoff <lars@nocrew.org>]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> FWIW, that makes three global write commiters/four SC members that view
> your proposal as useful in principle, if I've counted correctly. ;-)

These are the positive comments I've found, with Mark Mitchell being
the most sceptical, and almost everyone pointing out that PDP-10
support is quite useless in itself.

It would also be interesting to hear from the DSP folks.

Michael Meissner <meissner@cygnus.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:18:00AM +0200, lars brinkhoff wrote:
> > Isn't it about time gcc was enhanced to support "weird" pointers?
> Sure I do.

Mark Mitchell:
> Those kind of generic changes are probably welcome -- especially if
> they don't add much maintenance overhead, and if there are other
> architectures that have similarly unusual pointer formats.

kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> [...] adding support for this, if done cleanly, is likely to
> be a worthwhile addition to GCC since it may produce a level of
> abstraction in the handling of pointers that might make *other*
> things easlier down the road.

Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
> [...] changes which improve GCC's handling of multiple pointer
> formats are of interest to us as there are modern targets which
> would benefit from that infrastructure.

Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com> writes:
> [...] there's a large group of word-oriented architectures out there
> (DSPs).  [...]  For that reason, your work may be interesting.
> [...] I have a vague feeling that the quality of the back end may be
> improved and possibly more opportunities for improvement exposed if
> careful attention is paid to what is an address and what is an
> integer, as this work will require.

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joe Buck wrote:
> > [...] For that reason, your work may be interesting.
> Seconded.