Erik Troan bubbles:
> 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
> my time.
There are at least 2 cheap or free 34k C compilers I know of. One was
written by a friend of mind. If people get really keen about a 34010
(curse the day), I'll ask him for terms. It is adapted from a 68k
compiler, and it has a number of simple machine independant optimisations.
It generates assembly output. I can also get an assembler and linker.