On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmiscml@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:56:53 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
[]
Yes, there are several ways to achieve that... but I meant that maybe some projects will only compile with GCC (or run properly if compiled with GCC), because they assume quirks in implementation, invalid syntax in language standards but valid in GCC, and things like that. Like the reasons why Linux kernel does not compile with LLVM. I think that many projects might have similar problems if the compiler is not GCC.
well, we just have to suck it and see. i think we will get a lot of support from ICubeCorp (hopefully this will not overwhelm their engineers) as they will *definitely* want to know when something doesn't work... and fix it!
Sorry, if you said that Cray, Inc. engineers would work on that (because rumors say its their architecture, though I didn't see someone presenting datasheet comparisons) - that at least somehow would sound plausible, but ICubeCorp engineers? Ughh.
well, actually i since did some more checking and the news i saw basically says it's a from-scratch design.
And here's the salt of the story - no, they can't make it. Because in 2 weeks after ESP8266 went viral, the community, with the help of Cadence engineers (Cadence now owning the Xtensa arch on which ESP8266's CPU is based) already had a working GCC compiler: https://github.com/jcmvbkbc/gcc-xtensa .
ooo i _like_ the xtensa architecture, i spoke with them a while back. did you know that the majority of audio codec ICs world-wide use the xtensa dsp core? a few years ago before they were bought they claimed to have *1.6 billion* licenses world-wide.
cool huh? :)