Re: LLVM

[Andrew Pinski]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:46 PM, David Chisnall <csdavec@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>  I started looking at the GNU runtime, and added a few bits to it
>  before deciding that it would be more effort to fix it than to write a
>  new one from scratch.  Considering that my runtime is 15% of the code
>  size and vastly more expressive than the GNU runtime, I think the GNU
>  one is something of a dead end.  It's worth supporting for backwards
>  compatibility, but not worth the time and effort it would take to
>  modernise it.

I don't think it is dead end, in fact I think LLVM and clang are dead
end and should not be supported, Apple went and designed their own
stuff because GCC was NIH and they did not think GCC would work in the
long run.  I rather see improvements to the GNU runtime and the GCC
front-end rather than messing with some unproven tech that is LLVM and
clang  I think rather it is different from your runtime.  I think you
should reconsider what you mentioned.  If you want improvements,
please ask because this is the first time I heard that the GNU runtime
is a dead end.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
The GNU runtime maintainer and the SPU back-end maintainer

PS I hate how Apple is so anti GPLv3 but I guess that is what you get
with lawyers running the show there.  Also I think Apple is making a
mistake in making their own compiler from GCC.