To be fair, gcc, g++ and gobjc combined are actually bigger than clang+llvm. At least on my system. So it could have been worse.
2011/2/3 David Leimbach <leim...@gmail.com> > On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> > wrote: > >> It is a C/C++/Obj-C compiler & does static analysis, has > >> backends for multiple processor types as well as C as a > >> target, a lot of optimization tricks etc. See llvm.org. But > >> frankly, I think they have lost the plot. C is basically a > >> portable assembly programming language & in my highly biased > >> opinion a C compiler should do no more than peephole > >> optimizations. If you want more, might as well use a high > >> level language. > > > > preach it, brother. i couldn't agree more. > > > > - erik > > > > > Well LLVM uses its internal ASTs for a lot of the optimizations doesnt > it? My understanding is LLVM is a stack of software that you compose > other programming language tools by including the libraries you want. > One might be able to remove the optimizing behaviors one doesn't want > pretty easily, or write one's own optimizing layer that's stripped > down. Then one could have the "do what I said" compiler instead of > the "do what you think I meant" one. > > I believe there are occasions for each type of compiler really. > > It might seem really big and bloated but I still think what they've > done is kind of neat. Making a real compiler in Haskell or O'Caml is > pretty damned easy with LLVM bindings. > > I wonder how difficult it is to target Plan 9 with LLVM. > >
