I'm not dependent on it, although at some point, I'm sure i may take a
closer look at the code to see how they've done certain things.
Just as a reminder, even though the Microchip code is covered by the GPL,
code based on it won't be acceptable for inclusion into FSF GCC unless
you can get
I'm not quite sure I follow you.. if its possible to dedicate a register to
act as the data-stack pointer, and implement it that way, why would I want
to keep the SP as a virtual register? I'm not being antagonistic when I
say that.. I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to tell
On 11 April 2006 08:47, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
I'm not quite sure I follow you.. if its possible to dedicate a register to
act as the data-stack pointer, and implement it that way, why would I want
to keep the SP as a virtual register?
Because then you would /not/ have to sacrifice one
On Apr 11, 2006, at 03:46, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
I'm not quite sure I follow you.. if its possible to dedicate a
register to act as the data-stack pointer, and implement it that
way, why would I want to keep the SP as a virtual register? I'm
not being antagonistic when I say that.. I'm
I send a message to John Elliott's listed address yesterday, and I have
not yet received an immediate response. I will post to this list if I
receive anything from him.
So, I'd caution anyone away from basing any work on the dsPIC port until
some specific understanding is established with
Does anyone have any ideas about what gcc support is like for targets with
no data stack? The 14 bit cores (16F) mostly have a 2-8 level hardware
stack, which is not part of the program or data memory, and is not
addressable. There is no data stack.
I'm hoping that there is an existing
Ok I was wrong. Maybe you could contact John Elliott
([EMAIL PROTECTED]), because I 'm not an English native speaker
and I don't understand all the juridic terms. I also think that the
goodness of the question often makes the goodness of the answer.
Best regards,
Francois Poulain
Le dimanche 09
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 07:54:24AM +, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
I'm hoping that there is an existing backend architecture where there is no
stack, so that I can have a peep to see how the code fakes stack support,
but so far, all the obvious candidates (the microcontrollers) seem to have
On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
Just as a reminder, even though the Microchip code is covered by
the GPL, code based on it won't be acceptable for inclusion into
FSF GCC unless you can get Microchip to sign a copyright
assignment, which seems unlikely.
Would seem
Again, the GCC3 distribution has a port of the IP2K microcontroller.
It has a hardware call stack, but the data stack is implemented
entirely in software.
You will have to dedicate a register to act as the data-stack
pointer. I suppose if you limit yourself to
writing functions with NO
François Poulain wrote:
I think so. Microchip have done a modified version of GCC-3.3 with
DSPICs support, so we have got a heavy good base to work on the
instruction set, wich is similar for PIC18. DSPIC is a 16 bit CPU, so is
memory isn't segmented.
Just as a reminder, even though the
If I'm right, here are copyright assignments to FSF for the Microchip's
contributions for GCC.
Best regards,
Francois Poulain
[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/David/Install/gcc-3.3_with_PIC30_support/gcc-3.3/gcc/config/pic30 $
head pic30.*
== pic30.c ==
/* Subroutines for insn output for Microchip dsPIC30.
François Poulain wrote:
If I'm right, here are copyright assignments to FSF for the Microchip's
contributions for GCC.
Unfortunately, this is not good enough. A copyright assignment is a
formal contract that must be physically signed and sent to the FSF. See
Le vendredi 07 avril 2006 à 02:54 -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise a écrit :
I have also recently become interested in a GCC port for the 18F.
Can someone summarize who--if anyone--is working on this, how much
progress he has made so far (Is his work based on mainline?), and any
expected future
I have also recently become interested in a GCC port for the 18F.
Can someone summarize who--if anyone--is working on this, how much
progress he has made so far (Is his work based on mainline?), and any
expected future milestones?
(And who are all of the people in the CC list? Is there some
Aaron,
I'm currently working on this, for one. I'm in the very early stages of
development.
I'm currently using the following GCC ports (backends) for references
purposes: AVR, m68hc11/12. My code is currently based on GCC 3.3, but I'll
migrate to mainline as soon as I have any changes
See also the recent mails on Re: GCC port for V8-uRISC (8 bit CPU), which
I'm not really familiar with yet, but which could be very relevant.
Colm
Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
Have you checked out SDCC? This may support the specific devices you're
interested in. For my part, I'm more interested in a GCC port than SDCC
though, as I feel there is an awful lot more to be gained from a gcc
port in the longer term.
As near as I can tell, the
I will probably start working on a 18F back-end if no definite plans for
implementing a complete port materialize 'soon.' (that is, if no-one else
seems likely to produce anything within the next few months)
Well I suppose these things need to start from individuals grouping
together.. I'm
(And who are all of the people in the CC list? Is there some other
list discussing this?)
We were randomly CC'd in the initial spew of emails, although I
personally am already on the gcc list, so CC'ing me on this only
serves to mess up my procmail filters. I've asked privately to be
removed
Yes, I have the source code of this backend. It's based on gcc-3.3.
You can find an URL to download the source code on the GCC mailing, else
I can put it on a FTP server.
PoluX
It seems that there is already a PIC port for gcc.. in the form of
Microchips own MPLAB C30 compiler.. I didn't realise this (and google
certainly didn't tell me) until I had started on the PIC14 port for gcc, and
went to the Microchip website for some info, and searched on C compiler
and then
PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GCC Port (gcc backend) for Microchip PICMicro microcontroller
Date
],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: GCC Port (gcc backend) for Microchip PICMicro
microcontroller
PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: GCC Port (gcc backend) for Microchip PICMicro
microcontroller
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:16:39 +0100
I am interested by your work, you can share it. What was your Gcc
development version ?
Le mercredi 08 mars 2006 Ã
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
I've been thinking a bit more about this (no code yet: I was busy
trying to find and fix a bug in gpsim), and I'm still not sure what
the optimal development mode is.. by this, I mean.. what should
the proposed PIC port of GCC produce?
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GCC Port (gcc backend) for Microchip PICMicro microcontroller
Like you, I'm still
PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GCC Port (gcc backend) for Microchip PICMicro
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GCC Port (gcc backend) for Microchip PICMicro microcontroller
Like you, I'm still studying the internals of gcc, but I'm close to
being confident enough to start making some changes
Hello,
Le lundi 06 mars 2006 à 13:39 +, Colm O' Flaherty a écrit :
Francois,
I'm really interested in getting a gcc port (gcc backend) for the Microchip
PIC16F family (14 bit instruction, 8 bit word) up and running. I've seen
various mails to the gcc list that refer to this, the most
Like you, I'm still studying the internals of gcc, but I'm close to
being confident enough to start making some changes.
Nice !
Le lundi 06 mars 2006 à 17:17 +, Colm O' Flaherty a écrit :
Francois,
There are only 35 instructions in the 14 bit instruction set, and given
that, in gcc,
31 matches
Mail list logo
