[LLVMdev] [patch] native AMD64 support

[Chris Lattner]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> If by AMD64 you mean true 64-bit mode instruction set, I'd say it's different 
> enough to warrant a new target.  The differences between 386/486/586/etc are 
> very minor in comparison.

It depends on how different it is.  It is quite similar to the differences 
between PPC32/PPC64 and Sparc V8/V9.  Given this, it makes sense to 
support the target in lib/Target/X86, so that the common target 
description (which is most of it) can be shared between the 32 and 64-bit 
systems.  As tblgen and the code generator in general improves, this will 
get easier and easier to implement.

By the way, I think that "X86-64" is more vendor neutral than AMD64, as 
intel supports effectively the same 64-bit extensions as AMD does.  Given 
the choice, I think we should name subtargets, autoconf stuff, etc x86-64 
instead of amd64.

Just MHO,

-Chris


>> On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 22:40, Misha Brukman wrote:
>> 
>>> If you want to work on something, getting LLC to produce AMD64 code
>>> would be the first step, and getting the JIT to work would be the
>>> second.  I am assuming native 32-bit binaries will run, just slower, so
>>> this is an "optimization". :) 
>> 
>> I believe x86 BE is due for "sub-target" support to handle variations in
>> the 386, 486, 586, ... instruction sets. Could amd64 be thought of this
>> way? Or, is it different enough that its a new target?
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/