On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less >>> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs. >> >> From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to >> replace the current frontends entirely. > > Yes, I think it would be interesting to consider how Clang could > evolve into a portable C/C++(/ObjC/ObjC++) front-end that could be > used by LLVM and GCC (and other FOSS compilers) -- an alternative to > the EDG front-end.
For what it is worth, this is something that the clang folk would certainly like to see happen. Clang is also already factored such that you don't need to pull in LLVM IR (and thus the llvm backend and code generator) if you don't want to. Just convert from clang ASTs to generic or gimple. -Chris
