This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the CGEN project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

make CGEN a less moving target?

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?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]