[M3devel] non-gcc backend

[Tony Hosking]

On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Jay wrote:

> Well that I can contradict. Digital (Bill Kalsow) did the x86 backend.
> Attached is from boot-LINUXELF.tar.bz2 (originally some other  
> compression).
>
>  2) Unpack "boot-XYZ.tar.gz":
>        gunzip < boot-XYZ.tar.gz | tar xpof -
>  3) Inside the boot-XYZ directory that gets created,
>     unpack "m3cc.tar.gz".  It's the gcc-based backend.
>        cd boot-XYZ
>        gunzip < ../m3cc.tar.gz | tar xpof -
>     On Windows 95 and Windows NT, m3cc is not used.  This step should
>     be skipped.
>
> I think a C producing backend would be useful, to quickly get  
> Windows IA64 and AMD64 support...

There was a C-producing backend in the bad old days.  Is it still  
around anywhere?  Also, I know there were experimental BURS-based  
backends too.  An alternative to C might be C-- or llvm.

>
>
>  - Jay
>
>
>
> > From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
> > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:12:23 -0500
> > To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> > CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > Subject: Re: [M3devel] non-gcc backend
> >
> > CMass (Bill Kalsow) were the ones to do the x86 backend I think.
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2007, at 2:28 AM, Jay wrote:
> >
> > > I thought the last Digital release used the non-gcc backend for
> > > Linux x86. My mistake I see.
> > > The next thing to look into is the Critical Mass release, which I
> > > can't get to at the moment.
> > >
> > > - Jay
>
>
> Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Power up! 
> <NOTES>