llvm dev - Nov 2005 - [LLVMdev] LLVM + GCC Integration Proposal

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/

Chris Lattner wrote:
>
>> 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
>
I wonder.  I could be totally wrong, but it's always been my impression 
that the lack of support for bootstrapping via Microsoft's compiler is 
more political than technical.  After all, gcc can bootstrap with just 
about every other C compiler in existence, including some that are "less 
than perfect".  If anyone knows the actual reason, I'd welcome being 
corrected.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> I wonder.  I could be totally wrong, but it's always been my impression
that
> the lack of support for bootstrapping via Microsoft's compiler is more 
> political than technical.  After all, gcc can bootstrap with just about
every
> other C compiler in existence, including some that are "less than
perfect".
> If anyone knows the actual reason, I'd welcome being corrected.
I have no idea, but I imagine it's more of the GNU build change that is 
missing.  They support cygwin after all (using autoconf and makefile stuff 
from the gnu world).

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/