Re: What's lacking: a good intermediate form

Tony wrote:
> "Max Hailperin" <max@gustavus.edu> wrote in message
>> (2) You reject someone else's back end that is usable on a canned,
>> black-box basis.
>
> I didn't reject LLVM. I was recently at the project website and got
> the impression that their goals will not be achieved for many
> years. Vaporware?


Not only does LLVM already exist, it is already shipping in commercial
products.


> Also, it would be nice to have a backend that isn't as complex because it
> won't have to be for my language because it is no where as complex as C++.


C++ has not imposed significant complexity on LLVM. Consequently, you can
write an optimizing native code compiler for a trivial language in only 100
lines of code:


    http://groups.google.com/group/fa.caml/msg/5aee553df34548e2


> LLVM would be "wasted man years", though it would probably work.


Dozens of language implementations have already been built upon LLVM. It
works.


> Just because I personally don't want to do the backend doesn't mean that I
> wouldn't want someone to do that specifically for my language rather than
> in general for all languages or C++ (the latter of which is "a lofty
> goal").


The llvm-gcc compiler compiles many languages including C++ to optimized
native code that is competitively performant with GCC.


What you are referring to is the separate Clang project that aims to
implement a new C++ *front* end.


>> If LLVM is flexible, that means it can accommodate not only your
>> current design, but also the future ones you are going to try out
>> (some of which may turn out to be dead ends, quickly scrapped once
>> tried).
>
> Again though, because LLVM project goals are so lofty, it may not be
> available in my lifetime.


I suggest you spend less time writing such nonsense and focus on learning
LLVM instead.


--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.