On xxx, 27 Jun 1993, Pat Mackinlay wrote:
[lots of good stuff about 34010's deleted becuase we've all read it already
> BTW: I wouldn't expect that using a 34010 would make the graphics
> system outperform any of the VGAs out there, but it'd be quite
> interesting, and would leave the main CPU free to do some "real"
> work. It might even be practical to run PEX stuff <grin>
If we do decide on the 34010 path, I agree with Pat that a gcc port would
be a huge problem. I'm willing to write a small C compiler for the chip
from scratch. I'm not offering to port gcc, as I think that such an effort
is unnecessary. If the chip is going to be driving graphics, code doesn't
have to be written often, so I think we can live with putting the
optimizations in the code instead of the compiler.
By small I mean I'm not going to write a floating point library (though
I'd be happy to integrate with one written by someone else), generate
anything but straight object code for the 34010 (we don't need dll's,
etc for a graphics processor), or even acknowledge C++'s existence any
further then allowing // for comments. Let me know if this is worth
> [...if there is no archive site, would someone be willing to mail me
> the last day or two of messages? I don't like having to repeat questions
> that people have already answered...]
If there is an archive site, would someone please let me know. If not, I'd
like to set one up on sunsite.unc.edu. /pub/Riscy maybe? Seems like we
should start thinking about an ftp site anyhow.