Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: AVR LLVM backend?

[Dave N6NZ]

Preston Wilson wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure this is not an issue (anymore, at least).  I could be
> > > > wrong.  The recently-added PIC port of LLVM would be a good
> > > > place to start 
> > > > looking. 
> > Ummm... are you sure they mean PIC as in a processor from Microchip, or
> > do they mean PIC as in Position Independent Code?
> >
> > That particular collision in the acronym name space is a frequent cause
> > of confusion among embedded developers....
>
> They have both.  Most references are to the position independent code type,
> but under "the new features" link near the top right hand side of the main
> page. It includes this statement:
>
> "LLVM 2.4 also includes an initial port for the PIC16 microprocessor.

OK, just checking :)  I've seen people trip over that before...

> This
> target only has support for 8 bit registers, and a number of other crazy
> constraints. While the port is still in early development stages, it shows
> some interesting things you can do with LLVM."

Hmmm... even if nobody in the AVR world has time right now to devote to 
actually doing an AVR back end, it might be worthwhile (and entertaining 
as well  :) to follow along on the dev e-mail list and ask: "Have you 
thought about how you would handle <foo>?" every once in a while.  That 
might be just enough to drive the infrastructure in a good direction.

Also... I suspect that I am like many others here, I want to do AVR 
work, and patching the tools is a side effect.  However, LLVM probably 
has it's share of compiler geeks hanging around looking for an 
interesting challenge.  Maybe we can bait (did I say that?) one of those 
folks into adopting the AVR, simply because it is an intellectually 
interesting puzzle.

-dave

> -Preston