search for: trcs

On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > I am considering adding a new target independent codegen-only COPY instruction to our MachineInstr representation. It would be used to replace INSERT_SUBREG, EXTRACT_SUBREG, and virtual register copies after instruction selection. Selection DAG still needs {INSERT,EXTRACT}_SUBREG, but they would not appear as MachineInstrs any longer.

I am considering adding a new target independent codegen-only COPY instruction to our MachineInstr representation. It would be used to replace INSERT_SUBREG, EXTRACT_SUBREG, and virtual register copies after instruction selection. Selection DAG still needs {INSERT,EXTRACT}_SUBREG, but they would not appear as MachineInstrs any longer. The COPY instruction handles subreg operations with less

...t that it borrows the linux GCC ABI... and it does. You can compile with an off the shelf GCC cross compiler and link the resultant object files ones compiled with the PS3 provided version. We have done it. Also, as both an XBox 360 and PS3 developer, there seems to me to be nothing in the TCRs/TRCs that preclude us from using a different compiler. There are rules about symbol inclusion and other resultant binary requirements... but as of yet I have not found specific ones stopping us from using a compiler that works. In either case the LLVM rewriter solves any other these issues as we would...

.... and > it does. You can compile with an off the shelf GCC cross compiler > and link the resultant object files ones compiled with the PS3 > provided version. We have done it. > > Also, as both an XBox 360 and PS3 developer, there seems to me to be > nothing in the TCRs/TRCs that preclude us from using a different > compiler. There are rules about symbol inclusion and other > resultant binary requirements... but as of yet I have not found > specific ones stopping us from using a compiler that works. In > either case the LLVM rewriter solves any ot...

...You can compile with an off the shelf GCC cross compiler >> and link the resultant object files ones compiled with the PS3 >> provided version. We have done it. >> >> Also, as both an XBox 360 and PS3 developer, there seems to me to be >> nothing in the TCRs/TRCs that preclude us from using a different >> compiler. There are rules about symbol inclusion and other >> resultant binary requirements... but as of yet I have not found >> specific ones stopping us from using a compiler that works. In >> either case the LLVM rewrit...

...borrows the linux GCC ABI... and it does. You can compile with an off the shelf GCC cross compiler and link the resultant object files ones compiled with the PS3 provided version. We have done it. > > Also, as both an XBox 360 and PS3 developer, there seems to me to be nothing in the TCRs/TRCs that preclude us from using a different compiler. There are rules about symbol inclusion and other resultant binary requirements... but as of yet I have not found specific ones stopping us from using a compiler that works. In either case the LLVM rewriter solves any other these issues as we would...

...the linux GCC ABI... and it does. You can compile with an off the shelf GCC cross compiler and link the resultant object files ones compiled with the PS3 provided version. We have done it. >> >> Also, as both an XBox 360 and PS3 developer, there seems to me to be nothing in the TCRs/TRCs that preclude us from using a different compiler. There are rules about symbol inclusion and other resultant binary requirements... but as of yet I have not found specific ones stopping us from using a compiler that works. In either case the LLVM rewriter solves any other these issues as we would...

PS3 is not "a Linux derivative." The compilers supplied by SCE for PS3 game development are highly customized and support a customized ABI that will take some time to adjust LLVM and Clang to support. You'd likely also run afoul of a TRC or two, similar to the problems you'll face with Microsoft TCRs mentioned earlier. Alex On May 27, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevin Wooten

Implementing the backend (or editing the current PPC backend as needed) is a definite option. This seems to be the real question... which is easier... maintaining the PPC backend or maintaining the rewriter. Currently (in admittedly trivial tests) I have gotten the rewriter to work and output C code. There are some outstanding issues to do with linking and accessing the reflection information