Re: LLVM or GCC or Intel?
Re: LLVM or GCC or Intel?
- Subject: Re: LLVM or GCC or Intel?
- From: Jonas Maebe <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:57:18 +0100
On 01 Aug 2008, at 08:38, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:
Ironicaly, their is no easier way to create a new compiler for OS X
than with LLVM. One of it's purpose is to provide an unified way to
produce binary. If you want to create a new OS X compiler, you would
just have to use LLVM libraries, either the free online version, or
the potential "close with secret features not redistributed" version
include with the OS.
I am actually working on an LLVM backend for our compiler. I started
working on that before this whole NDA silliness though, and the
realisation that it may be the only way forward did not exactly add
extra motivation (no, I'm not a commercial developer, although I do
support quite a few commercial users).
Ho yes, if Apple release a closed version that is required to
produce OS X binaries, you would not be able to reinvent the wheel
and create your own llvm byte code to machine code converter. But
honestly, nobody care about this.
Yes, nobody except for compiler and other low level developers.
Especially if those nobodies actually have to support users using
their compiler. Having ABI information is a great aid for debugging
code generation issues, e.g. to figure out whether a problem is with
your frontend or due to a bug in LLVM. It's also pretty much
indispensable if you want to gracefully deal with hardware exception
handling (floating point exceptions, illegal pointer accesses, ...).
The ability to create a direct backend can also provide a workaround
for users in case the LLVM backend doesn't work in a particular
situation for whatever reason.
But this nobody will now stop with this OT thread.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden