llvm dev - Jul 2008 - [LLVMdev] gcc in c++

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
wrote:
> The sad thing is that they seem to be replacing one unsafe language with
> another, presumably with enormous effort.
>
> The only hopeful sign in that thread is the proposal for using Cyclone
> instead, starting here:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00502.html
>
> But it is summarily tossed out, without examination:
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00644.html
>
> If all we can ever use are languages that everyone knows, there will be
> no progress.
Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/tablua_fracta.html.

Part of what makes LLVM interesting is that there's the potential to
put together a new language on top of LLVM relatively easily, and get
powerful optimizers and cross-platform compatibility without having to
write any middle-end and back-end code.  I think this really has the
potential to allow writing new languages and higher-quality
implementations for existing languages that can compete with C/C++ in
places where C/C++ traditionally dominate.

-Eli

On Jul 2, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
> Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/ 
> tablua_fracta.html.
If we apply their logic to llvm, we can dominate, if we just target 8  
cores.  :-)

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
>> Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it:
>> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/
>> tablua_fracta.html.
>
> If we apply their logic to llvm, we can dominate, if we just target 8
> cores.  :-)
That's not so far from the truth... a high-quality parallelized
LTO+codegen implementation would really set LLVM apart from other
current compilers.

-Eli