> -----Original Message----- > From: John Regehr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:40 AM > To: Weddington, Eric > Cc: Arnim Littek; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [avr-gcc-list] AVR LLVM backend? > > In my opinion the advantage of llvm-avr-gcc wouldn't so much > be better > code (though it may be a bit better) but rather decreased compiler > maintenance effort. The LLVM interfaces seem (1) pretty > stable and (2) > relatively narrow compared to gcc's.
And that decreased maintenance effort is a compelling argument. > Someone should just do it. A hacky backend supporting only > the megas is > probably less than a month effort for a reasonable hacker. Then if > initial results are promising, others will jump in to help > and eventually > perhaps an avr-gcc replacement would emerge. Great! Do you have a month's worth of free time? ;-) I sure don't at this point in time. Perhaps sometime next year I will. > In my opinion LLVM needs a few tweaks before it's a really > strong embedded > compiler. For example its inliner can cause significant > bloat even at > -Os. But overall it is quite good. On the other hand there are the > advantages above plus the developers are extremely responsive. For > example in the past year I've been reporting lots of bugs in > compilers' > implementations of volatile. The LLVM people almost always > fix bugs in a > few days whereas there's at least one volatile bug that has > sat in the gcc > bugzilla for 6 months without even being confirmed. As a > result LLVM is > at present almost totally volatile-correct, gcc has a ways to go. And their developers' responsiveness is one of the major reasons why I have been considering it. _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
