Hi llvm list ! Everything is in the question. I've read this discussion on the mailinglist * [LLVMdev] LLVM IR is a compiler IR<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/N3r_a1Vbrog/discussion> . * But since llvm3 and type system rewrite, is it a good idea to rethink about a VM wich could run the IR bytecode directly? llvm has differents bytecode from low level, to more hight level... So do you see some interest to have this kind of VM for one of this bytcode ? Is it hight level enougth like java byte code ? My second obvious question is about the bycode format, is it stable enought to concider using it as an 'archive' source/byte code ? Thanks for some guidances, before investing lots of energy ! Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120718/a22b8547/attachment.html>
On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Pierre P <ploploplop123 at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi llvm list ! > > Everything is in the question. > I've read this discussion on the mailinglist [LLVMdev] LLVM IR is a compiler IR. > But since llvm3 and type system rewrite, is it a good idea to rethink about a VM wich could run the IR bytecode directly?The type system changes you mention changed the way struct types are named and uniqued, but structs are still just structs. This change doesn't really make LLVM IR higher-level in any way that would significantly affect the issues discussed in that thread.> > llvm has differents bytecode from low level, to more hight level... So do you see some interest to have this kind of VM for one of this bytcode ? > Is it hight level enougth like java byte code ?Java bytecode remains much much higher-level than LLVM IR; this hasn't significantly changed.> > My second obvious question is about the bycode format, is it stable enought to concider using it as an 'archive' source/byte code ?Quite a few people are interested in keeping the bitcode format stable these days, so it will probably remain fairly stable for the foreseeable future. That said, as far as I'm aware all of the issues discussed in the "LLVM IR is a compiler IR" thread are at least as relevant today as they were then. Dan
Thanks Dan for your responses ! On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:> On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Pierre P <ploploplop123 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi llvm list ! > > > > Everything is in the question. > > I've read this discussion on the mailinglist [LLVMdev] LLVM IR is a > compiler IR. > > But since llvm3 and type system rewrite, is it a good idea to rethink > about a VM wich could run the IR bytecode directly? > > The type system changes you mention changed the way struct types > are named and uniqued, but structs are still just structs. This > change doesn't really make LLVM IR higher-level in any way that > would significantly affect the issues discussed in that thread. > > > > > llvm has differents bytecode from low level, to more hight level... So > do you see some interest to have this kind of VM for one of this bytcode ? > > Is it hight level enougth like java byte code ? > > Java bytecode remains much much higher-level than LLVM IR; this > hasn't significantly changed. > > > > > My second obvious question is about the bycode format, is it stable > enought to concider using it as an 'archive' source/byte code ? > > Quite a few people are interested in keeping the bitcode format > stable these days, so it will probably remain fairly stable for the > foreseeable future. > > That said, as far as I'm aware all of the issues discussed in the > "LLVM IR is a compiler IR" thread are at least as relevant today as > they were then. > > Dan > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120720/758b6e95/attachment.html>