On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> use some library capable of generating machine code in memory; in > particular libjit http://www.southern-storm.com.au/libjit.html > http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/libjit-developers/ or > GNU lightning http://www.gnu.org/software/lightning/lightning.html > https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/lightning/ . Ok, some of them are > lacking > important features like tail recursion or good support of a > garbaged-collected runtime. I am unimpressed with the performance given by virtual machine implementations, even those with signifigant developer backing (such as the JVM). If I didn't give a fig about performance, I'd probably implement my own VM. > > implementing the functional language within a > language/implementation providing enough hooks for that, I am > thinking of MetaOcaml http://metaocaml.org/ (somehow nearly dead > unfortunately), Parrot http://parrotcode.org/ (which does have some > tail recursion support and JIT compiling) or even SBCL common lisp > implementation (provided you use the internals of it, which means > making a big dive!) > Using another language runs afoul of many of the same problems using the JVM or CLR does. >> >> I think the three new things I'd like to see out of C-- are (in rough >> order of priority): >> 1) x86-64 support > > I definitely agree that this is of topmost priority for C-- to survive! But I don't think it'd be hard to implement. The x86-64 instruction set is very similiar to the x86-32 instruction set, so large amounts of the back end could be cribbed. Brian _______________________________________________ Cminusminus mailing list [email protected] https://cminusminus.org/mailman/listinfo/cminusminus
