Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:23:29AM +0000, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
An llvm target will move the optimisation burden away from fpc, which
would be very interesting.
While we would welcome a LLVM backend it is basically a consent in
the development team that this would only be an additional
alternative to the normal backends FPC provides.
LLVM's target list doesn't look particularly brilliant compared with
FPC's :-/
How do you mean? It supports more architectures than FPC, as far as I
can see (http://llvm.org/Features.html). They also have a C backend
that you can use for targets that they don't support.
I'm not denigrating it and I note Sven's points, but no 68K, no AVR, no
JVM. "Brilliant" in this context would have been every 32/64-bit
architecture that has a compatible assembler (presumably, GNU as).
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
