[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]gcc?

From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]gcc?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:06:46 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-9mdk i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001013

The gnu binutils can also potentially be used to link object modules that were generated from a proprietary origin. However, this is a different issue, and more one that is philosophical to the notion of compiling something from a provable original source that one can examine. I am going to suggest that Bradley field this question, and in fact, I propose that we come up with a gcc FAQ for DotGNU that covers this and other issues so that everyone has a reference point to understand this and other related gcc issues. This FAQ probably could include some discussion on the treecc toolchain as well.

Keith Poole wrote:

Fair enough, but one thought that occurs to me is - if we have a VM which handles IL in any form, this will be true, anyone could produce a proprietary language which generated IL, and the .GNU VM would happily run it.

David Sugar wrote:

There are philisphical reasons not to do this and why this won't be done.

Consider this, what if one had a proprietary compiler tool chain for some special proprietary "X" language that happend to generate IL. This would mean that one could then use gcc to compile entirely source secret applications. This would be a perversion of gcc.

John wrote:

Keith Poole wrote:

There is an alternative, the virtual machine in .NET compiles the IL
into native machine code, so why couldn't the .GNU virtual machine use
the gcc back-end to convert the IL?  This would give the advantage of
 the good code generation of gcc, provide code generation for a host of
machines in one go, and allow toold such as gdb, to be used to debug
applications.  So the sequence of events to run a program is:

1.  Write the code
2.  Compile into IL using the .GNU compiler
3.  Start execution
4.  The virtual machine converts the IL into RTL (Register Transfer
Language), passes it to the gcc back-end and produces machine code.
5.  The produced code executes,

Stupid thought of the day #6635

I know zilch about GCC from any end other than as a user, but let me
suggest that it might be easier just to be passing RTL around the net?
IL would be passed around and compiled as you say, but our VM could use
RTL as a base?

How much work would it be to turn the GCC backend into a VM?

John Le'Brecage
Developers mailing list

Developers mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]