I like Chris' proposal to do the C backend using the existing target-independent backend framework. I think it would be a fun project so I will take up the mantle. I don't know if I can devote any work-time hours to this so it might all be on my own time. But it's certainly in my interest to get a better C backend. -Dave
Hi David,> I like Chris' proposal to do the C backend using the existing > target-independent backend framework. I think it would be a fun project > so I will take up the mantle. I don't know if I can devote any > work-time hours to this so it might all be on my own time. But it's > certainly in my interest to get a better C backend.this sounds like a great project, thanks for taking it up! Ciao, Duncan.
On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:> Hi David, > >> I like Chris' proposal to do the C backend using the existing >> target-independent backend framework. I think it would be a fun project >> so I will take up the mantle. I don't know if I can devote any >> work-time hours to this so it might all be on my own time. But it's >> certainly in my interest to get a better C backend. > > this sounds like a great project, thanks for taking it up!Yeah, that's great! -Chris
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] C Backend
- [LLVMdev] C Backend
- Puppet template tags and Java JSP tags
- [LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering
- [LLVMdev] [NVPTX] Backend failure in LegalizeDAG due to unimplemented expand in target lowering