I appreciate the direction. 

We used a special tag in the preprocessor that we did. But there is no
requirement of any specific means or syntax. 

we have been calling content addressable variables "sarts".

So the first thing we must do is take almost any existing variable and
identify it as a sart - that would be an attibute. 

But it must also belong to a specific group/block/.... Name spaces
could deal with this, but depending on the problem there could be one
namespace for all CA variables or many different namespaces. 

Basically the variable must be identified as content addressable, and
it must be tagged as utilizing a specific address translation

The next issue is that when the variable is used any type of bounds
checking must be disabled because the "bounds" of a sart or content
addressible variable are not easily known by the compiler. 

Next the code generated for get/put will be different. 

On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 08:59 +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 11:53 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
> <> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 at 22:41, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> > > I am looking for any help I can get - pointers as to where to
> > > start
> > > with GCC, docs or howto's through to someone that wishes to
> > > participate
> > > in the project.  There is a potential for compensation - we are
> > > seeking
> > > a grant, though our long term goals are partnership with a Memory
> > > vendor.
> > 
> > I would start with
> > and the docs it links to at
> >
> You might also want to look at named address spaces, though they
> are tracked as qualifiers.  Generally annotations to declarations are
> easiest as custom attributes, though I would guess you need to
> be able to annotate pointer (types) as well, thus my hint with the
> address-spaces.  I guess handling all Content addressable variables
> as being in a single special address space isn't enough of
> information
> to address them.
> Richard.
> > This list is the place to ask if you get stuck, or the #gcc channel
> > on
> > the OFTC IRC network.

Reply via email to