search for: cfor

On 11/23/2013 12:18 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > Thanks, you have a lot of valid points there. I have myself long ago > abandoned the path of using C as a backend language due to the very > factors you mention. > > However, as I said, the document was put together in 30 minutes. Not > exactly ready for prime time :-) > > I do agree that all of the things you mention

...perhaps occasionally ask you guys for specifics. >> >> We are not going to find much common ground on the issue of "calling >> propagated return values for exception handling", I think :-) See >> https://www.lyngvig.org/Teknik/A-Proposal-for-Exception-Handling-in-Cfor the details. >> >> I started out with C++ as the example language because a lot of people >> know that language - and most certainly the majority of the LLVM user base. >> Obviously, you'd have to add source code from other languages than C++ >> when C++ does not...

Thanks, you have a lot of valid points there. I have myself long ago abandoned the path of using C as a backend language due to the very factors you mention. However, as I said, the document was put together in 30 minutes. Not exactly ready for prime time :-) I do agree that all of the things you mention should be described, including Lambdas, closures, and generators, but I must admit up

Hi, documentation is always good and this is a great idea. It'll be particularly useful as a place where additional examples of constructs from non-C-family languages could be added (since most compiler tutorials inevitably focus on languages that are a lot like C/C++/Obj-C). I'd imagine you've already thought of this, but it might be something where using pseudo-LLVM-IR is of the