This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC IMA & general future proposal
- From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot dot org>
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Cc: Caroline Tice <ctice at apple dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>,Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:03:58 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: GCC IMA & general future proposal
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Geoff Keating wrote:
> >>> Has anyone seriously considered using or adopting LLVM
> >>> (http://llvm.org)?
> >>> It seems to provide just about everything on your diagram, and is
> >>> also
> >>> quite efficient.
> >>>
> >>> Even if it is not an option, I would really be interested to hear why
> >>> not and what is missing. In particular, LLVM is mutable, and it's
> >>> easier to add things to it than to reinvent the whole thing. :)
> >>
> >> It's the part where you have to add everything that GCC has that LLVM
> >> doesn't that seems to be the problem.
> >
> > Heh, likewise, you're talking about adding everything that LLVM has to
> > GCC. :)
>
> Right. So, which is the larger source base, LLVM or GCC?
To put it another way, which has more missing features? :) LOC isn't
everything, as we've shown many times over.
-Chris
--
http://llvm.org/
http://nondot.org/sabre/