Re: SDCC porting feasibility study, part 1: the assembler

[Jody Bruchon <jody@jodybruchon.com>]

On 02/27/12 15:42, Brad Normand wrote:
---snip---
> ACK is kind of a wildcard that might fit somewhere in-between any of
> this depending on what exactly it is, but we already know it has some
> issues.  It does presumably work though.

I have read up on how ACK works, from some of the whitepapers on the 
site. The 6502 code generator's output is absolutely nightmarish. ACK 
apparently uses a not-so-grand intermediate representation that is 
responsible for it not being that good at generating code.

> Writing our own toolchain... eech.  Might have been a neat idea back
> in the 80's.

Where did all these other toolchains come from, anyway? As far as I am 
aware (trust me, bcc is pretty hard to find solid information about), 
the Dev86 toolchain was pretty much just Bruce Evans' work up until the 
point that the Linux-8086 crew grabbed it and beefed it up further. It 
might be yucky, but even if yucky, it's an option that would work.

Jody Bruchon