Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks for woking on this. Any specific reason why using the LLVM >> bytecode wasn't taken into account? > > It was. > A large number of alternatives were explored, including CIL, the JVM, > LLVM, etc. > >> It is proven to be stable, high-level enough to >> perform any kind of needed optimization, > > This is not true, unfortunately. > That's why it is called "low level virtual machine". > It doesn't have things we'd like to do high level optimizations on, > like dynamic_cast removal, etc.
Anyway, *slightly* extending an existing VM which already exists, is production-ready, is GPL compatible, is supported by a full toolchain (including interpreters, disassemblers, jitters, loaders, optimizers...) looks like a much better deal. Also, I'm sure Chris would be willing to provide us with all the needed help. I also think CIL would have egregiously worked. I'm sure the reasons to refuse it are more political than tecnical, so it's useless to go into further details I presume. Giovanni Bajo
