[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LLVM
From: |
Pete French |
Subject: |
Re: LLVM |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:46:32 +0000 |
> Do you really think that the LLVM license is a good license for our
> compiler / runtime language library ? ;-)
Lisence wars are never very productive and the UNIX/BSD vs the Linux/GNU
style has been runnign for years. The thing is, wouldn't it be nice to
have it so GNUstep worked with both ? I really like the sound of this
compiler (it's a new toy if nothing else) and I also like the sound of
the new runtime. But that doesn't mean a switch from GCC surely ? Choice
is a good thing...
Or to put it another way, I don't think we should be including a compiler
or runtime *at* *all* as part of GNustep - it should be "choose your
Objective-C compiler" as then it gets on with it. Possibly easier
said than done though :-)
-pete.
- LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/02/28
- Re: LLVM, Gregory John Casamento, 2008/02/28
- Re: LLVM, Nicola Pero, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM,
Pete French <=
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Andrew Pinski, 2008/02/29
- Re: [Etoile-discuss] LLVM, Nicolas Roard, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Nicola Pero, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Graham J Lee, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Nicolas Roard, 2008/02/29
- Message not available
- Re: LLVM, address@hidden, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/02/29