sashti srinivasan <svasn_tcpip@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > (1) I suppose that 'gas' is much more machine > dependent than gcc. Please guide me regarding where > can I find documents regarding how to port 'gas' to a > new CPU. gas is part of the GNU binutils. binutils questions are best addressed on the binutils mailing list. For more information, see http://sourceware.org/binutils/ The internal gas documentation can be found in gas/doc/internals.texi. > (2) Since rest of the utilities in binutils have > more to do with binary format than with architecture, > porting these(ld,nm,ar....) to a new CPU is going to > be farily simple. Am I right? Sort of. You need to implement relocation handling appropriate for your architecture, and that is trickier than it should be. > (3) I like to port GDB also. Please give me > pointers where I can find the corresponding > documentation. See http://sourceware.org/gdb/ In particular, gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo. > (4) As a first step, I want to develop a gdb > simulator for the new CPU I have in mind. Where can I > find the documentation describing how to write a > simulator. As far as I know, there isn't any. Look at existing simulators. > (5) In porting GCC tool-chain to a new CPU > architecture, or in otherwords developing cross > tool-chain for a new CPU architecture, I assume that > following is the most appropriate sequence: > (a) Develop a simulator so that executables for > the new CPU can be run using GDB > (b) Port as so that programs can be written in > the assembly language of the CPU and assembled. > (c) Port gcc so that c programs can be written > to run on the target CPU > Is this sequence correct? Pretty much. You will want to write the disassembler when you write the assembler. Ian
