Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:48:12 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> 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: <20090115124812.GA51770@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <496F2FC0.3050401@gmx.de> References: <496F0D1D.7080505@andric.com> <6c51dbb10901150344s409cd834p3cd8fae189e42a68@mail.gmail.com> <9225949D37F24E01AA5FC01169A256F2@PegaPegII> <20090115122805.GA48561@freebsd.org> <496F2FC0.3050401@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:44:48PM +0100, Christoph Mallon wrote: > 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. yes.... but the point is that clang does not need "something that translates mov ax, bx to machine code" > >the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary > > This is just a kludge, because clang has no proper compiler driver, yet. there's a work going on successor of ccc and ccc itself works for a lot of cases even today (I use it for compiling freebsd)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090115124812.GA51770>