This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC + libJIT + Domain Specific Languages Concept Integration
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Kirill Kononenko <kirill dot kononenko at gmail dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:09:35 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC + libJIT + Domain Specific Languages Concept Integration
- References: <b21f6d8e0904171210v4f9abb3co6e7a952763da8c93@mail.gmail.com> <20090417193437.GD23986@synopsys.com> <49E8E330.6060009@codesourcery.com>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:14:40PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:10:27PM -0700, Kirill Kononenko wrote:
> >> One of the many options is in using the Common Intermediate Language
> >> and .NET to store portable programs. Does this sound like a good idea
> >> to you?
> >
> > To the extent that the effect is to create a portable binary format,
> > I expect that the FSF would say "no, this is not a good idea at all!".
> > This is because they seem to promote the sharing and modification of
> > source code, not bytecodes for .Net or JVM.
>
> On the other hand, the FSF seems to understand that even free software
> developers do want to share binaries, including things like shared
> libraries that are intermediate steps between source code and a final
> program.
Of course. I didn't mean to suggest not supporting CIL/.NET, or
JVM, they certainly have their uses. But if the reason to advocate
them is to "store portable programs", people can legitimately take
issue with that.