On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Kevin André wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, 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: >>>> 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. > > Doesn't clang depend on LLVM libraries like LLVMSystem and LLVMSupport?
Yes, but those are very small libraries that don't pull in the llvm backend, code generator or llvm IR either. -Chris
