search for: tablua_fracta

...without examination: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00644.html > > If all we can ever use are languages that everyone knows, there will be > no progress. Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/tablua_fracta.html. Part of what makes LLVM interesting is that there's the potential to put together a new language on top of LLVM relatively easily, and get powerful optimizers and cross-platform compatibility without having to write any middle-end and back-end code. I think this really has the potential...

On Jul 2, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it: > http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/ > tablua_fracta.html. If we apply their logic to llvm, we can dominate, if we just target 8 cores. :-)

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> Another perspective on this sort of issue, if you haven't seen it: >> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2007/10/ >> tablua_fracta.html. > > If we apply their logic to llvm, we can dominate, if we just target 8 > cores. :-) That's not so far from the truth... a high-quality parallelized LTO+codegen implementation would really set LLVM apart from other current compilers. -Eli

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:44:46 +0300, Török Edwin wrote: > Hi, > > Have you seen this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00385.html > There is a new branch for converting gcc to C++. > > Best regards, > --Edwin The sad thing is that they seem to be replacing one unsafe language with another, presumably with enormous effort. The only hopeful sign in that thread is the

Hi, Have you seen this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-06/msg00385.html There is a new branch for converting gcc to C++. Best regards, --Edwin