Am 01.10.2011 23:25, schrieb Stefan Weil: > Am 01.10.2011 18:54, schrieb Andreas Färber: >> Am 17.09.2011 22:00, schrieb Stefan Weil: >>> +The bytecode consists of opcodes (same numeric values as those used by >>> +TCG), command length and arguments of variable size and number. >> >> While reusing TCG opcode values certainly makes things easy to >> implement, have you evaluated using LLVM bitcode as alternative to a >> fully custom intermediate code format? > > I had a look on several bytecode representations - initially I thought > of using Java. LLVM was on my list, too, but I cannot say that I really > evaluated any of these alternatives. My primary goal was to learn more > about TCG and to get something working, and as you said, reusing the > TCG opcodes made things easier.
Okay, just thought I'd ask the blunt question. :) We should be careful not to expose it to outside processes as discussed elsewhere in the thread or we will have to start caring about ABI versioning. > LLVM might also be used as a replacement for TCG. > It would be really interesting to see how both compare. Maybe suited for a GSoC project? Andreas
