Raoul wants to have the entire ATS toolchain compiled into JVM. If we just want to produce JVM from ATS source code, then the ATSCC route should be adequate. We could target Java, Closure, etc.
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:55:37 AM UTC-4, Artyom Shalkhakov wrote: > > On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:14:56 AM UTC+6, Raoul Duke wrote: >> >> https://github.com/davidar/lljvm >> possibly interesting. >> > > I'm sorry, it doesn't seem to be actively maintained. > > There is also a possibly newer fork, here: > > https://github.com/hyc/lljvm > > I don't know if it will help or not. > > What do you think about going the ATSCC route? Will it not suffice? > Certain language features will be unavailable, I think. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ats-lang-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ats-lang-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to ats-lang-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ats-lang-users/d85c317a-ec4f-4ee7-81ce-21afaa7a546b%40googlegroups.com.
