Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

Richard Guenther richard.guenther@gmail.com
Tue Sep 14 17:14:00 GMT 2010


On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>>> Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
>>>> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
>>>
>>> From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
>>> replace the current frontends entirely.
>>
>> Yes, I think it would be interesting to consider how Clang could
>> evolve into a portable C/C++(/ObjC/ObjC++) front-end that could be
>> used by LLVM and GCC (and other FOSS compilers) -- an alternative to
>> the EDG front-end.
>
> For what it is worth, this is something that the clang folk would certainly like to see happen.  Clang is also already factored such that you don't need to pull in LLVM IR (and thus the llvm backend and code generator) if you don't want to.  Just convert from clang ASTs to generic or gimple.

Yes, that was my idea as well.  I presume the most interesting part
will be to get the types correct, the statement pieces should be
straight-forward.  If somebody wants to give it a try, I would simply
create a new GCC frontend linking to Clang.

Richard.



More information about the Gcc mailing list