Initial SPARC compilation test

[Morris Meyer]

Christian suggested that we use Fmt superclasses to contain the various SPARC instruction modes.  I think his preference would be to generate the assembler w annotations but this is as far as we pushed it.

I started w static methods like the PTX and AMD64 assemblers but this pattern is sort of growing on me as makes asserting things easier.

The warning is handled in the lir.sparc package with a JDT prefs change.

      --mm


On May 25, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Doug Simon <doug.simon at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi Morris, Christian,
> 
> Why is the SPARC assembler constructed as a set of classes, one for each instruction as opposed to a single assembler class with a bunch of methods (like AMD64Assembler)? I trust that escape analysis does the right thing so there's no overhead for the object construction but I don't see any real advantages to doing it this way. It's strange to have a constructor with a side effect. And of course, it means we need to suppress the Eclipse warnings somehow.
> 
> -Doug
> 
> On May 25, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Morris Meyer <morris.meyer at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> I just pushed the initial SPARC compilation test for Graal.
>> 
>> ./mx.sh --vm server unittest BasicSPARCTest
>> 
>> will get you started.
>> 
>>       --mm
>