On 22.09.2014 01:37, Drew DeVault wrote:
> […] and in a perfect
> world we'll make it self hosting.
>
> […]
>
> You are of course welcome to take anything you wish from our fork, and
> we'd be happy if any SDCC users wanted to come join us in making it better.
There are still a few missing stand
On 22.09.2014 01:37, Drew DeVault wrote:
> We would also like to refactor out
> the C++ code (and with it, the boost requirement), […]
Easy: Remove everything that uses tree decompositions; Remove the new
register allocator (the old one is still there, for --oldralloc), remove
lospre (GCSE is sti
On 09/23/2014 02:16 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> On 22.09.2014 01:37, Drew DeVault wrote:
>> Hi there! I wanted to let you guys know what us KnightOS folks
>> ended up doing with SDCC. You might remember my email a few
>> months ago asking about some of our concerns.
>>
>> […] - Removed unnec
On 22.09.2014 01:37, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Hi there! I wanted to let you guys know what us KnightOS folks ended up
> doing with SDCC. You might remember my email a few months ago asking
> about some of our concerns.
>
> […]
> - Removed unneccessary subsystems such as the simulator[…]
From an outi
Hi there! I wanted to let you guys know what us KnightOS folks ended up
doing with SDCC. You might remember my email a few months ago asking
about some of our concerns.
We have decided that the best course of action is to fork SDCC,
considering that we needed fairly radical changes and that they w
