Comment by mysterymath

Comment by mysterymath 2 days ago

Hey, llvm-mos maintainer here. I actually work on LLVM in my dayjob too, and I don't particularly want llvm-mos upstream. It stretches LLVM's assumptions a lot, which is a good thing in the name of generality, but the way it stretches those assumptions isn't particularly relevant anymore. That is, it's difficult to find modern platforms that break the same assumptions.

Also, maintaining a fork is difficult, but doable. I work on LLVM a ton, so it's pretty easy for it to fold in to my work week-to-week. And quite surprisingly, I used AI to help last time, and it actually helped quite a lot!

nineteen999 2 days ago

What's your take on sdcc 6502 support at the moment, if you have one? Im just happy to finally have an 8-bit C compiler that supports both targets, even if the codegen for 6502 needs a lot of work right now.

I'd happily take a llvm-z80 and llvm-6502 over sdcc if both were available

Edit: oh wow, look at that https://github.com/grapereader/llvm-z80. Aw but not touched for 12 years.

Reply View 2 replies

bbbbbr 2 days ago

Not the parent, but I have a take. :)
For GBDK-2020 we've been using the 6502 support in SDCC to support the NES as a target console for about 2 years alongside the existing Game Boy and SMS/Game Gear targets.
The 6502 port has been usable, but doesn't seem fully mature. There has been a lot of code churn for it during the last 12 months compared to the z80/sm83 ports as it gets improved. Recently (their recommended pre-release build 15614) this seems to have resulted in some breaking regressions that we haven't fully tracked down.
Perhaps this port is getting less testing coverage than the z80/sm83 port. Unsure. The majority of the 6502 work seems to be done by a newer member of their team, with the longer term members seeming to be somewhat hands-off. That might be an additional factor.
Edit: BTW, the 6502 port in SDCC at build 15267 (~4.5.0+) has been reasonably stable and usable, and is what we based our last GBDK-2020 release on (6 months ago).

Reply View | 1 reply
- nineteen999 a day ago
  
  Ah thank you, that is all very helpful - I've been using 4.4.0 which is fine for Z80 code, but yeah had the feeling 6502 code generation could be improved.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

zozbot234 2 days ago

Even if y'all don't particularly care about having the full backend upstream just yet, it still seems worthwhile to comprehensively document these assumptions within the project, and perhaps to upstream a few of the simpler custom passes where not too much "stretching" of assumptions is involved, if only to ease future forward-porting work.

Reply View 0 replies