search for: go_faq

...losely, it says that LLVM was too slow for 6g, which is > their ultra-fast, non-optimizing implementation based on the Plan9 > compilers. Indeed: "We also considered using LLVM for 6g but we felt it was too large and slow to meet our performance goals." - http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#Implementation > In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's > definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. I'm *very* surprised by this and will test it myself... -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

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