[M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Jay K]

I shouldn't bite the hand that feeds, but I presume LLVM is a moving target roughly as much as gcc is.
gcc's moving target has indeed been slightly painful. But it is not the only complaint I have.
Plus, you don't see Tony complaining about whatever he had to do to move from 3.x to 4.x.
I'm a whiner.
LLVM is probably large and slow to build, similar to gcc.
But we don't get too many complaints about that.


gcc's reach is impressive.
C/C++'s reach is even better.
I remain keen on VMS/Alpha, VMS/IA64, Linux/ia64.
I know they are viable with gcc/c/C++. Unknown about LLVM.


I'm also still interested in our own backend maybe.


 - Jay

----------------------------------------
> From: dragisha at m3w.org
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:21:43 +0100
> To: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com; jay.krell at cornell.edu
> Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
>
> Jay's effort is really excellent thing happening to cm3, but LLVM really is something.... C is nice, and whole system cleanup is for the best, but ultimately - LLVM is where we need to go. If for nothing else, then because it's not moving target like GCC is, and because of what Xcode preview features show LLVM can do for a programmer.
>
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Tony Hosking wrote:
>
> > It's an additional hurdle for installation. There are some platforms where I don't have it already.
> > Once the gcc developers require C++ to install gcc's C compiler then I guess maybe this is moot.
> > We really should look at using LLVM!
>