From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5197 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2003 09:22:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5166 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2003 09:21:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2003 09:21:59 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18giEA-0005AO-00 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:21:50 -0500 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169Kaf22915; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:20:36 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169Kaa14952; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:20:36 -0500 Received: from north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com.redhat.com (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h169KWt14507; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:20:34 -0500 To: rsmith@qualcomm.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, dkrulce@qualcomm.com, deames@qualcomm.com Subject: Re: POC for GCC ARM back end? References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030130165217.02829bd0@mage.qualcomm.com> From: Nick Clifton Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030130165217.02829bd0@mage.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00254.txt.bz2 Hi Randall, > We're using GCC (2.95.3, I believe) to compile C++ for the ARM > processor. We're finding that the quality of the code > optimization for this processor is fairly low, and would like > to talk to someone who is familiar with the history of the ARM > back end for GCC, primarily with an eye to seeing whether > optimizer improvements have been made since our release and/or > are likely to be made in the near future. In general work on optimisations for GCC has tended to be in the generic part of the compiler, where they will benefit lots of ports, not just the ARM port. There are some ARM specific optimisations as well, but these are not a focal point for development work. It would definitely be worth your while downloading the latest release of the GCC sources (3.2.1) and comparing the code it produces with the code you are currently obtaining from your 2.95.3 compiler. Beware however, that the 3.x series of GCC compilers use a different, and incompatible C++ ABI. So you would have to rebuild and and all C++ programs and libraries if you wanted them to work with the new compiler. > Would it be possible for you to give us the name of someone > who can answer these kinds of questions for us (and generally > put us in the picture on GCC's ARM support)? I'm not sure how > GCC's contributing support network operates, or what the > protocol is for these kinds of requests. The best people to ask are the maintainers for the GCC ARM port. You can find a list of these people in the MAINTAINERS file which ships as part of the GCC sources. Currently the maintainers are myself and Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com). I would recommend visiting the GCC web site: http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html For information on how contributing and supporting GCC works. It is also worth noting that there are companies who will sell you support and/or development contracts for GCC, should you be interested. Cheers Nick