Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

Chris Lattner
Wed Sep 15 22:16:00 GMT 2010

On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Kevin André wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner <> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <> wrote:
>>>> 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.
> Doesn't clang depend on LLVM libraries like LLVMSystem and LLVMSupport?

Yes, but those are very small libraries that don't pull in the llvm backend, code generator or llvm IR either.


More information about the Gcc mailing list