Path: csiph.com!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "Walter Banks" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 43 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <18-04-008@comp.compilers> References: <0d4dc7f8-1819-43e5-8082-6ff7aee5f41b@googlegroups.com> <2018Mar31.160556@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2018Mar31.195714@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2018Apr1.144759@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <229d6323-b9fa-4845-8039-03799d76c847@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="49964"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: standards Posted-Date: 10 Apr 2018 11:04:45 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2037 [[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]] On 2018-04-03 6:53 AM, already5chosen@yahoo.com.dmarc.email wrote: > On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 12:45:21 PM UTC+3, David Brown wrote: >> On 02/04/18 23:28, already5chosen@yahoo.com.dmarc.email wrote: >> >> And Greenhills, and Keil, and ImageCraft, and Tasking, and >> Bytecraft, and HiTech, and SDCC, and many others. >> >> Certainly it is a much harder environment for competition than it >> used to be - toolchain vendors can't compete on price alone. > > Keil is a part of behemoth (ARM) since long ago. I didn't encounter > Green Hills compiler in wild for a long time. Not sure they are still > actively developed. Tasking - had seen their RTOS used, never > compiler. For others, I don't remember ever seeing them used. May be, > it's just me. > There are some good reasons for many of the non GCC compilers in embedded systems. GCC doesn't handle very well some of the ISA's that are used in many of the embedded systems applications. In my experience there are a lot of ISA's designed for machine generated code that don't map very well in the GCC (some do as well) A processor that I have been working on for example it is essentially impossible to write an assembler for. GCC tools are for the most part using old compiler technology. Some of is decades old. There is a lot of work going on in area's that just are ineffective in with GCC tools that are easier to deal with user other code generation tools. In my case a massively parallel processors, AI ISA's, ISA's for machine generated code and various event driven processors used in automotive, general aviation and instrumentation. Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited