On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> I thought BitC was based on TAL, but I might have got that wrong. In any > case, I think TAL is a kind of proof carrying machine code. > BitC is not based on TAL. The confusion may have come about because we *have* talked some about type-preserving compilation, and also about the possibility that a (subset of) the BitC type system after Nat kind is introduced actually does look like it could be used to type assembly language directly. What I'm currently contemplating is a bit different from Greg and Neal's work, though I need to go back and review that. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
