Re: [Tinycc-devel] RISC-V support

[Christian Jullien]

Ok, that fine.
Does it means that B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V#Bit_manipulation)
is currently implemented by soft. IMHO, for system programming it is a must
have. For example, my OpenLisp implementation heavily relies on shift, bit
mask...
Is it something you plan to support? Possibly with specific flags, as gcc
does like: -march=rv64ifd 

C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Matz [mailto:address@hidden] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2019 21:53
To: address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] RISC-V support

Hello,

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Christian Jullien wrote:

> Question, what RISC-V flavor(s) do you support, i.e. what is the minimal 
> RSIC-V subset do you require? If I've read correctly, RISC-V is a 
> modular architecture with optional features (hard float, MMU..)

So, it's using the RV64IMFD subsets.  When the sources don't contain float 
or double arithmetic the FD subsets aren't used, but I do rely on the 
existence of M for any multiplications and divisions (by non-power-of-2).


Ciao,
Michael.


> 
> C.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=address@hidden] On Behalf Of
Michael Matz
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2019 00:42
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Tinycc-devel] RISC-V support
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> 
> >> Every compiler has its own benefits. That's why tcc still exists
> >> in particular. :)
> >
> > Right.  Wake me when clang can target MSP430 and microblaze.
> >
> > Adding RISC-V support to tcc would be _extremely_ interesting.
> 
> Pushed to mob.  Tested on openSUSE and Debian riscv64 distros, but only 
> via a qemu, not on real hardware.  The thing is enough to compile itself 
> and the full testsuite, so it's reasonably complete (e.g. the fancy 
> argument passing and long double support is there).  No compressed code is

> generated, inline asm isn't supported.  Given the limitations of the TCC 
> code generator the quality of the generated code is on par with the other 
> architectures (i.e. horrible :-) ).
> 
> I did my best to test the other targets, but only checked armhf, aarch64, 
> i386 and x86-64 on linux; i.e. the windows backends weren't checked.
> 
> Still, have fun.
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> Michael.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>