This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: CIL back-end

Roberto COSTA wrote:
> Ori Bernstein wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <> 
> >said:
> >
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics.  Within our 
> >>team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries 
> >>(compliant with ECMA specification, see 
> >>
> >>Our main motivation is the ability to produce highly-optimized CIL 
> >>binaries out of plain C code (and C++ in the future), and possibly to 
> >>add some optimizations to improve, if needed, the quality of the 
> >>generated code.
> >
> >
> >It seems that there's a Summer of Code student working on the exact same 
> >item:
> >
> >
> >Perhaps you could collaborate with him, or (as I believe the Summer of Code
> >rules might require) build off his work after it gets submitted. I'd 
> >suggest
> >you contact the Mono project about it.
> Thanks for the info.
> A few days ago, the student posted a help request to gcc-help mailing 
> list (, which shows 
> he's at an early stage of the work.

Yi Wang, here is an early attempt to a RTL based CIL backend, together
with the difficulties of dealing with such a low level representation,

"GCC .NET---a feasibility study". Jeremy Singer. In Proceedings of the
First International Workshop on C# and .NET Technologies, pages
55--62. Feb 2003.

so I think that an RTL CIL generator is really not a good idea.

> I think in my team we're at a more advanced stage, since we have ideas 
> about how to do things and we start having some prototype code.
> I hope a collaboration is possible; I will certainly contact him and the 
> mentor of the SoC project about it. If there are restrictions imposed by 
> SoC rules, it's up to them to let me know.
> By the way, from the previous messages, I understand that the inclusion 
> of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted until the issue is 
> discussed and an approval is obtained.
> In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a development 
> branch. Without that, it would be much more difficult to build a 
> collaborative, open and world-wide visible development environment.
> Not working on the development of the CIL back-end, or even letting it 
> stalled, is not a choice for my team and myself.
> What is a choice is to share its development and the related 
> infrastructure in the most open way... I think it's the best choice, for 
> all parties; I really hope it's a viable one!
> Cheers,
> Roberto

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]