[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port
From: |
Tom Kerekes |
Subject: |
RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:25:03 -0800 |
Yes. Basically 1 instruction per cycle as well as nops placed after so
the next bit of code can't use a result before it is ready. This makes
the generated code look really silly. Probably a second pass could be
added to eliminate unnecessary nops, store/loads, and even parallel up
some things. My main emphasis was getting it to generate correct code.
TK
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
Laurent DESNOGUES
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:23 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port
> Currently it compiles under MS VC++ 6.0 and runs under MS Windows,
> but it wouldn't be hard to change back to Linux. If anyone has
> any interest I can post the code somewhere.
This is impressive! How did you get around C6x non-locking
pipeline? Single instruction per cycle?
Laurent
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
- [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Kerekes, Tom, 2003/03/06
- [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, TK, 2003/03/07
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Laurent DESNOGUES, 2003/03/07
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port,
Tom Kerekes <=
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Peter \"Firefly\" Lund, 2003/03/07
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Peter \"Firefly\" Lund, 2003/03/07
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, TK, 2003/03/08
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Peter \"Firefly\" Lund, 2003/03/08
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, TK, 2003/03/11
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Peter \"Firefly\" Lund, 2003/03/11
- RE: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Peter \"Firefly\" Lund, 2003/03/11
- [Tinycc-devel] Jump optimization and for loops, Peter \"Firefly\" Lund, 2003/03/11
Re: [Tinycc-devel] C6x Port, Fabrice Bellard, 2003/03/07