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: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>,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>,Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:43:59 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: GCC IMA & general future proposal
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 21:03, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > To put it another way, which has more missing features? :) LOC isn't
> > everything, as we've shown many times over.
>
> It's not LOC.
>
> It's 52 targets with a bunch of subtargets against a compiler that so
> far can't tell the difference between a Pentium 2 and a Pentium 3.
>
> Redoing all the backends for LLVM is a huge amount of work. Think
> about the S/390 for example, or AMD64, Itanium, etc. Those are not
> targets you just rewrite a good backend for in a matter of weeks or
> months.
Getting back to technical issues, let me point out that using LLVM to do
IPO does not require throwing away all of the RTL backends!
-Chris
--
http://llvm.org/
http://nondot.org/sabre/