Re: [buildd] Etch?
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:57:55AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > Well, okay. For clarity, that's not what I'm doing. I think that it's
> > too late for etch (although I won't stop trying), but I do think that we
> > will be able to make it back in -- especially if the ColdFire thing ever
> > gets to work.
>
> It would be nice if CF would help us to keep the port alive, but I fear
> other problems will arise then like incompatibilities between CF and m68k
> code.
I don't think that will be much of an issue. There are a few cases in
which CF is different from classic 68k (try comparing the address
register indirect with postincrement or predecrement addressing modes on
CF and classic 68k for A7, if you want a very nice example); but such
issues can be worked around by either not using them at all, or just by
using them only in certain circumstances (though I don't think that will
be possible for the above example). It will just boil down to making
sure the compiler does that, and to making sure the assembler refuses to
create opcodes that behave too differently on both architectures; this
is much easier to accomplish than trying to avoid that the compiler
makes mistakes in the optimizer, like it currently does.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: