This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?
- From: Rafael Espindola <espindola at google dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Andrew Nisbet <A dot Nisbet at mmu dot ac dot uk>, "grigori dot fursin at inria dot fr" <grigori dot fursin at inria dot fr>, "baldrick at free dot fr" <baldrick at free dot fr>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, "zbigniew dot chamski at gmail dot com" <zbigniew dot chamski at gmail dot com>, "ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com" <ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com>, "Albert dot Cohen at inria dot fr" <Albert dot Cohen at inria dot fr>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 02:10:07 +0100
- Subject: Re: LLVM as a gcc plugin?
- References: <4A290438020000D90002F6E4@iris.jde.aca.mmu.ac.uk> <571f6b510906050343o16e5a179s97838d1baafb938e@mail.gmail.com> <8D7D4DC8-7934-41FC-A2FC-FB379E5E1DC4@apple.com> <20090605210546.GB32218@synopsys.com>
> GMP and MPFR are required components of GCC, and every developer has to
> deal with them. ÂFor interfacing between GCC and LLVM, the experts who'll
> be able to answer the questions are generally going to be found on the
> LLVM lists, not the gcc list, and those (like you) who participate on
> both lists, well, you're on both lists.
That is not the case here. There is already a version of gcc that uses
llvm. What
we are trying to find is if the GCC plugin infrastructure is generic
enough to support similar
use cases. In a previous mail I raised some issues in GCC that illustrate this.
> So as a practical matter, it seems that LLVM lists are more suitable.
> If it's ever decided that LLVM becomes a required piece of GCC, like
> GMP and MPFR, that would change.
Cheers,
--
Rafael Avila de Espindola
Google | Gordon House | Barrow Street | Dublin 4 | Ireland
Registered in Dublin, Ireland | Registration Number: 368047