On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:44:57PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
> > lose from llvm-gcc...
>
> What will be gained and what will be lost in your opinion?
>
I assume that, by clang-gcc, Paolo meant adding plug-in support for
a clang FE. It is unclear what is meant by llvm-gcc unless he really mean
dragon-egg. Certainly llvm-gcc itself is a rather dead-end as there appears
to be little appetite to attempt to update llvm-gcc to gcc 4.5 or later
due to GPLv3. Perhaps the best approach would be to welcome both. While
it can be clearly argued that dragon-egg is only a net gain for llvm,
the reverse could be said for a clang FE plugin to FSF gcc. By supporting
both approaches, both projects end up sharing and obtaining a net win for
each.
Jack
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel.
