search for: e9914c0b

On Thursday 12 November 2009 18:59:51 Owen Anderson wrote: > On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Edward O'Callaghan wrote: > > No, its up to them which backend they want to use. > > Sounds like they think that GCC is super quick compared to LLVM. Looks > > like another fud fart out of google to me. > > Actually, after chatting with Ian about it, it's more of a case of

On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Edward O'Callaghan wrote: > No, its up to them which backend they want to use. > Sounds like they think that GCC is super quick compared to LLVM. Looks > like another fud fart out of google to me. Actually, after chatting with Ian about it, it's more of a case of the FAQ being poorly worded than them being anti-LLVM. If you read it closely, it says

...Compared to a compiler in the same category as PCC, whose pinnacle of optimization is doing register allocation? I'm not surprised at all. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091119/e9914c0b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2620 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091119/e9914c0b/attachment.bin>