From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jody Bruchon Subject: Re: SDCC porting feasibility study, part 1: the assembler Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:34:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4BF6D5.7040801@jodybruchon.com> References: <20120227100515.GE27951@vega.lgb.hu> <4F4BA549.10506@jodybruchon.com> <4F4BD0D2.7030005@cowlark.com> <4F4BDB5D.6000304@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "ELKS (linux-8086)" 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