This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO
Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org> writes:
| On Tue, 23 Nov 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> writes:
| > | On Tuesday 22 November 2005 18:42, David Edelsohn wrote:
| > | > I will work with the GCC SC and FSF on that issue once the licensing
| > | > issue is addressed and we know LLVM is a viable option.
| > | >
| > | What purpose would that serve? I'm not concerned about the SC, initially.
| > | It's the development community at large that needs convincing first.
| >
| > help me finish converting GCC to something compilable with a C++ compiler.
| > Without having something concrete to test with, we'll go again over
| > abstract arguments -- I did the conversion (many times) on my machine
| > as a proof-of-concept.
| >
| > Lots of things kept (and are keeping) me busy. But, I'm back now and
| > working on it. I'd not mind more hands/help.
|
| Why is this important?
For what? LLVM? I never said it was.
| I'm finding that compiling GCC with a C
| compiler and using extern "C" around the headers works just fine.
some of us needs more than just 'extern "C"' around the headers. And
also notice that, not a long time ago you could not just pretend an
'extern "C"' around the headers and compiler it. For more
information, search the archive.
-- Gaby