On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
On 5-6-2013 9:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
On 4-6-2013 20:05, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Am 29.05.2013 06:25, schrieb Reinier Olislagers:
On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote:
On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble
believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this
line
perhaps be removed.
Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM
backend?
Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend.
Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the
backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring
duty :)
That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM
backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right?
Florian is not. Jonas is working on that.
Sorry: Florian is not what? You mean writing an LLVM backend? Yes, that
sort of shines through in the discussions so far ;)
Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite
knowledgeable especially after the Java work).... but the main thing I
was interested in was in whether there was support for inclusion for the
backend and whether the statement on the Roadmap page was correct.
The statement is correct.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
