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>