This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the CGEN project.
make CGEN a less moving target?
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- To: Johan Rydberg <jrydberg at night dot trouble dot net>
- Cc: <cgen at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:32:04 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: make CGEN a less moving target?
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0212101742570.1967-100000@night>
Johan Rydberg writes:
> From what I've seen it seems that CGEN have matured to the point
> where it maybe is time to write a list of what should be included
> in a CPU description, and where. Maybe list all keywords and such.
That's a good idea.
> The reason for this is that maybe someone would like to write a parser
> for .cpu-files, and not use the Scheme-sources provided by Red Hat, Inc.
> (define-insn ...) and similar seems pretty "stable", but there seem
> to be a lot of confusion regarding the (define-isa ...) fields.
Off the top of my head, there are at least 3 big things still to be done.
- The model description needs a complete rewrite. This has always been
planned. What's there now is a quick hack to get something to play with.
- I've always wanted to be able to handle the x86 ISA better.
[and ciscy isa's in general]
- Support for compilers.
While supporting gcc is a nice pie-in-the-sky-ish idea, there are other
forms of compilers that cgen should be able to support
(e.g. dynamic compilers).
While I can understand someone wanting a parser written in C[/C++],
I always thought forcing people to learn Scheme was a good thing! :-)
Or are there other reasons for wanting to write your own parser?