aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/18/88)
>/* ---------- "gcc for the 3B[12] ???" ---------- */ >Has anyone ported gcc to the 3B1 or 3B2? I would prefer a 3B2 version, >but if either one is available I would appreciate hearing about it. > >Thanks, >Mike >-- > >Michael D. Walker UUCP: walker@xanth.UUCP >Old Dominion University or: sun!xanth!walker Ditto, in my case for the 3B1. Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 aglew@gould.com - preferred, if you have MX records aglew@xenurus.gould.com - if you don't ...!ihnp4!uiucuxc!ccvaxa!aglew - paths may still be the only way My opinions are my own, and are not the opinions of my employer, or any other organisation. I indicate my company only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.
dwex@wuccrc (David Wexelblat) (03/20/88)
In article <31200017@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > >>/* ---------- "gcc for the 3B[12] ???" ---------- */ >>Has anyone ported gcc to the 3B1 or 3B2? I would prefer a 3B2 version, >>but if either one is available I would appreciate hearing about it. >> >>Thanks, >>Mike >>-- >> >>Michael D. Walker UUCP: walker@xanth.UUCP > >Ditto, in my case for the 3B1. > > >Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 > aglew@gould.com - preferred, if you have MX records I am currently working on this beast. It is coming along nicely, and I should have it done this week (there is some serious strangeness in the assembler on the 3B1). Not including the debugging stuff, I should have the patches to gcc 1.18 available soon. I will post them to unix-pc.sources when they are ready, and I will post an anouncement. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David Wexelblat Washington University in St. Louis (314) 889-4794 UUCP: dwex@wuccrc.UUCP or ..!{ihnp4,uunet}!wucs1!wuccrc!dwex ARPANET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex@uunet.uu.net CSNET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex%uunet.uu.net@csnet-relay or wucs1!wuccrc!dwex.uucp%bbncv.ARPA@csnet-relay -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David Wexelblat Washington University in St. Louis (314) 889-4794 UUCP: dwex@wuccrc.UUCP or ..!{ihnp4,uunet}!wucs1!wuccrc!dwex ARPANET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex@uunet.uu.net CSNET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex%uunet.uu.net@csnet-relay or wucs1!wuccrc!dwex.uucp%bbncv.ARPA@csnet-relay
alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) (03/21/88)
In article <809@wucs2.UUCP> dwex@wuccrc.UUCP (David Wexelblat) writes: >In article <31200017@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >> >>>/* ---------- "gcc for the 3B[12] ???" ---------- */ >>>Has anyone ported gcc to the 3B1 or 3B2? I would prefer a 3B2 version, > >I am currently working on this beast. It is coming along nicely, and I should >have it done this week (there is some serious strangeness in the assembler >on the 3B1). Nice too see all of this work in favor of 3b1's. I use gcc-1.17 as my default compiler, and i've been distributing diffs (for 1.17) for awhile. I will also be finished with 1.18 in about a week. Hopefully, I will get 1.18 diffs in time for 1.19, in which case the code will become part of the general distribution. I have a mailing list set up for gcc users for bug reports, et al, and would love to coordinate with people who are interested in working on this project. (GNU for 3b1). Maybe someday we can all run GNU Unix on our boxes! :alex. nerwin!alex@umbc3.umd.edu alex@umbc3.umd.edu -- :alex. nerwin!alex@umbc3.umd.edu alex@umbc3.umd.edu
elh@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Edward L. Hepler) (03/21/88)
In article <809@wucs2.UUCP>, dwex@wuccrc (David Wexelblat) writes: > In article <31200017@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > > > >>/* ---------- "gcc for the 3B[12] ???" ---------- */ > >>Has anyone ported gcc to the 3B1 or 3B2? I would prefer a 3B2 version, > >>Michael D. Walker UUCP: walker@xanth.UUCP > >Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana. 1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801 > > I am currently working on this beast. It is coming along nicely, and I should > have it done this week (there is some serious strangeness in the assembler > David Wexelblat Washington University in St. Louis (314) 889-4794 > UUCP: dwex@wuccrc.UUCP or ..!{ihnp4,uunet}!wucs1!wuccrc!dwex > ARPANET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex@uunet.uu.net > CSNET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex%uunet.uu.net@csnet-relay or > wucs1!wuccrc!dwex.uucp%bbncv.ARPA@csnet-relay I got gcc to compile (make it work on a 3b1 (SYS V)) a few months back for some computer architecture work that I am doing. alex@umbc3 has added unixpc tm and md files to allow gcc to generate code that the 3b1 assembler likes. He has generated diffs and should be contacted for a copy. I ran some of the common "benchmarks" using both the distributed C compiler and GCC and thought that you all might like to see some of the results. Note that since both compilers use a common I/O subsystem, the only real differences show up in "CPU intensive" benchmarks.. I haven't figured out yet why Dhrystone is slower with GCC??! Ed Hepler elh@vu-vlsi UNIX elhunx SYSTEM5 3.5 mc68k MANUF: ATT MODEL: 3b1 CPU: 68010 CLOCK: 10Mhz RAM: 2MB DISK: 67MB FPA: None gcc cc BENCHMARK REAL USER SYS REAL USER SYS --------- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- --- tst.sh 3.7 0.2 0.8 3.5 0.2 0.9 multi.sh 1 3.8 0.2 1.0 3.6 0.2 1.0 multi.sh 1 2 5.3 0.5 2.2 5.6 0.5 2.1 multi.sh 1 2 3 7.9 0.9 3.0 8.8 0.9 3.2 multi.sh 1 2 3 4 10.5 1.4 4.1 10.4 1.3 4.0 multi.sh 1 2 3 4 5 13.3 1.2 5.7 11.9 1.7 5.0 dwrite: 2.2 0.0 0.7 2.8 0.0 0.8 dread: 1.1 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.7 fcalla: 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 fcalle: 0.9 0.7 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.0 fibo: 20.4 19.9 0.1 18.7 18.0 0.1 float: 49.3 46.7 0.2 46.1 45.3 0.1 iofile: 2.7 0.2 2.0 2.8 0.1 2.0 loop: 3.4 3.2 0.0 6.4 6.2 0.0 pipes: 3.6 0.0 1.5 3.7 0.0 1.5 scall: 7.1 0.3 6.6 7.3 0.2 6.7 sieve: 1.9 1.7 0.1 2.3 2.1 0.0 bytesort: 19.4 18.5 0.3 26.0 25.1 0.1 iocall: 7.2 0.2 6.8 7.2 0.2 6.6 dryr: 831 dhry/sec 1:01.1 1:00.5 0.1 1049 d/s48.6 47.9 0.1 drynr: 831 dhry/sec 1:01.1 1:00.5 0.1 987 d/s51.7 50.9 0.1 Thu Feb 11 23:57:14 EST 1988
alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) (03/22/88)
In article <1442@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU> elh@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Edward L. Hepler) writes: >In article <809@wucs2.UUCP>, dwex@wuccrc (David Wexelblat) writes: >> In article <31200017@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: [stuff deleted about who's porting what and wher to get it] >computer architecture work that I am doing. alex@umbc3 has added unixpc tm and >md files to allow gcc to generate code that the 3b1 assembler likes. He has >generated diffs and should be contacted for a copy. I ran some of the common >"benchmarks" using both the distributed C compiler and GCC and thought that you >all might like to see some of the results. Note that since both compilers use >a common I/O subsystem, the only real differences show up in "CPU intensive" >benchmarks.. I haven't figured out yet why Dhrystone is slower with GCC??! > >Ed Hepler >elh@vu-vlsi [lots of benchmarks deleted. Most are fairly close between gcc and cc] >dryr: 831 dhry/sec 1:01.1 1:00.5 0.1 1049 d/s48.6 47.9 0.1 >drynr: 831 dhry/sec 1:01.1 1:00.5 0.1 987 d/s51.7 50.9 0.1 Alot of folks are talking about how wonderful gcc is, and it is, BUT... Gcc has a couple big advantages. It has fewer bugs than cc, and If you find a bug, you can report/fix it. Try talking to AT&T about internal compiler errors. This is why it it my default compiler. Playing with gcc has also taught me ALOT about compilers and large systems in general. It is very well designed, very portable, and well documented. Gcc has a sizeable drawback. While the code generation algorithm is superior to cc, It isnot/cannot be very machine specific. And on a 3b1 this is a big lose. All 'complex' math operations, ie: long * long, are machine dependant. they are handled through calls into a library gcc-lib, which is a batch of functions that look like: mull2(i1,i2) long i1,i2; { return i1 * i2; } which are compiled by /lib/cc and then linked into the gcc objects. All is not lost, however, This can be turned into an advantage. It is possible to reconfigure gcc to generate inline code instead of function calls, or optionally call alternate libraries. So one could call a library that did fixed point math instead of floating point, for a big WIN in graphics programs. This works because the floating point format is entirely determined by the library calls. The bottom line is, gcc is a wonderful toy. It is fun to play with and has its advantages. But it won't add any MIPS to a 3b1, at least until someone tunes it pretty heavily. BTW: I will be starting that tuning in a month or so, If someone could point me at a source for some fast fixed-point routines in 68K assembly, I would certainly appreciate it. -- :alex. nerwin!alex@umbc3.umd.edu alex@umbc3.umd.edu
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/23/88)
>I got gcc to compile (make it work on a 3b1 (SYS V)) a few months back for some >computer architecture work that I am doing. alex@umbc3 has added unixpc tm and >md files to allow gcc to generate code that the 3b1 assembler likes. He has >generated diffs and should be contacted for a copy. I ran some of the common >"benchmarks" using both the distributed C compiler and GCC and thought that you >all might like to see some of the results. Note that since both compilers use >a common I/O subsystem, the only real differences show up in "CPU intensive" >benchmarks.. I haven't figured out yet why Dhrystone is slower with GCC??! > >Ed Hepler >elh@vu-vlsi I'm also trying to use GNU CC for architectural studies. Can you give me slightly more explicit mail addresses for yourself and Alex? elh@vu-vlsi and alex@umbc3 are missing a few components (I assume .edu. but what then?) Also, would it be possible to obtain some of your benchmarks? Many of them are unfamiliar to me: tst.sh multi.sh 1 multi.sh 1 2 multi.sh 1 2 3 multi.sh 1 2 3 4 multi.sh 1 2 3 4 5 dwrite dread fcalla fcalle fibo float iofile loop pipes scall sieve -- Probably have a version of this bytesort iocall -- This is Jan Stubbs' dryr -- Have this drynr -- Have this