Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:44:48 +0100
From:      Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>
To:        Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Pegasus Mc Cleaft <ken@mthelicon.com>, FuLLBLaSTstorm <fullblaststorm@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become	standardcompiler?)
Message-ID:  <496F2FC0.3050401@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org>
References:  <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com>	<6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com>	<9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII> <20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roman Divacky schrieb:
> 2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine
> code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for llvm/clang.

This is an irrelevant detail for normal use.

> the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary

This is just a kludge, because clang has no proper compiler driver, yet.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?496F2FC0.3050401>