This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO
Diego Novillo wrote:
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.
My view here is that the primary reason for sticking to C is to
avoid aggravating the bootstrapping procedure. I see no objection
on this basis to including he use of C++ in optimizers. Of course
appropriate coding standards etc will have to be agreed on.
There may be people who just plain don't like C++, but that's a
completely different argument. I am not a great C++ fan, but I
see no reason not to have optimizers written in C++. At this stage
plenty of people are quite familiar with this language, so I do
not see that it would restrict development (proposing Ada for this
purpose would be a bit more controversial :-)
It seems reasonable to me to first resolve the licensing issues.