FYI: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives some insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably won't have a large impact on the LLVM community, other than potentially more people working on it. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
If copyright is assigned to the FSF, would they change the license to GPL? Also, would they be allergic to the VC++ suppport that currently exists? After all, if they're not careful, going down this route may result in a gcc that can be bootstrapped with VC++ :) Chris Lattner wrote:> > FYI: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html > > It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives > some insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably > won't have a large impact on the LLVM community, other than > potentially more people working on it. > > -Chris >
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote:> If copyright is assigned to the FSF, would they change the license to GPL?We would work something out. That is a huge 'if'.> Also, would they be allergic to the VC++ suppport that currently exists? > After all, if they're not careful, going down this route may result in a gcc > that can be bootstrapped with VC++ :)I don't think that's a problem. I think that, given a choice, allowing gcc to be bootstrapped with VC++ would be a favorable thing for the GCC community, regardless of LLVM. -Chris>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html >> >> It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives some >> insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably won't have >> a large impact on the LLVM community, other than potentially more people >> working on it. >> >> -Chris >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
On 11/18/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:> > FYI: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html > > It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives some > insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably won't have > a large impact on the LLVM community, other than potentially more people > working on it. >Excellent! Good luck! :-) -bw
If someone's looking for a fun project it would be cool to integrate techniques from Rhodium into the LLVM optimization passes: http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/pubs/popl05.html John -- John Regehr, regehr at cs.utah.edu Assistant Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Chris Lattner wrote:> > FYI: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html > > It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives some > insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably won't have a > large impact on the LLVM community, other than potentially more people working > on it. > > -Chris > > -- > http: //nondot.org/sabre/ > http: //llvm.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
Chris Lattner wrote:> > FYI: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html > > It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives some > insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably won't > have a large impact on the LLVM community, other than potentially more > people working on it.Congratulations, i hope this works out for the best. May i suggest taking out the registration requirement for dowloading llvm though? I don't know what the reasons were of putting it in (perhaps DARPA funding, but I'm just guessing here) but maybe it could be made optional or otherwise state what the reasons for registering are. I know it says "We'd like to collect some information about people and organizations who are interested in LLVM" but that's basically the purpose of any such form and people have become wary of these compulsory registrations. Personally, I'd suggest making an optional survey for people if you want to have a feeling for where llvm is used, but this is probably less and less interesting as llvm gets more popular (the answers you're going to get will asymptotically approach 'everywhere'). Marco
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Marco Matthies wrote:> Chris Lattner wrote: >> FYI: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html >> >> It remains to be seen how well this will be accepted, but it gives some >> insight on what is being worked on. In any case, this probably won't have >> a large impact on the LLVM community, other than potentially more people >> working on it. > > Congratulations, i hope this works out for the best. May i suggest taking > out the registration requirement for dowloading llvm though?FWIW, I fully agree with this. We are in the progress of making LLVM more open and less tied to UIUC. It is a gradual transition though, as UIUC (and Vikram's group in particular) has invested a lot in LLVM and thus deserves some recognition for it. OTOH, as LLVM is growing to a broader audience, it makes a lot of sense to transition to LLVM as an open source project, where Illinois is one of many contributors. This transition is currently underway, we are still working out schedules and details. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/