[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Etoile-discuss] LLVM
From: |
Nicolas Roard |
Subject: |
Re: [Etoile-discuss] LLVM |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:09:35 +0000 |
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - LLVM is already producing faster code than GCC.
>
> No it does not. It also supports less targets than GCC does which is
> the most important thing for free software really.
If it's so good, people will port it. Even the linux kernel was ported
on a lots of platform...
> > - LLVM code is clean enough that I can go from first looking at it to
> > submitting patches in a few days, while the GCC code is indecipherable
> > to anyone not already intimately familiar with it.
>
> This I will agree with but I will also say if LLVM was 20 years old,
> then it will also have the same issue as GCC.
Fair enough. But it doesn't remove this fact :)
> > - LLVM has a JIT mode which will (when combined with a runtime library
> > like mine - and unlike the Apple and GNU ones - which allows safe
> > lookup caching) allow dynamic inlining,
>
> Actually JIT is the worst thing really. I hate how people think JIT
> is the future, it is the past and static compiling is going to be
> around for many years. JIT is a fad.
I seriously doubt JIT is a fad, to the contrary.
--
Nicolas Roard
"Java, the best argument for Smalltalk since C++ " -- Frank Winkler
- Re: LLVM, (continued)
- Re: LLVM, Gregory John Casamento, 2008/02/28
- Re: LLVM, Nicola Pero, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Pete French, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Andrew Pinski, 2008/02/29
- Re: [Etoile-discuss] LLVM,
Nicolas Roard <=
- Re: LLVM, Nicola Pero, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Graham J Lee, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, Nicolas Roard, 2008/02/29
- Message not available
- Re: LLVM, address@hidden, 2008/02/29
- Re: LLVM, David Chisnall, 2008/02/29