On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@apple.com> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, that was my idea as well. I presume the most interesting part will be to get the types correct, the statement pieces should be straight-forward. If somebody wants to give it a try, I would simply create a new GCC frontend linking to Clang. Richard.
