Giovanni Bajo - Re: Link-time optimzation (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Daniel Berlin dberlin@dberlin.org wrote:

Thanks for woking on this. Any specific reason why using the LLVM bytecode wasn't taken into account?

It was. A large number of alternatives were explored, including CIL, the JVM, LLVM, etc.

It is proven to be stable, high-level enough to perform any kind of needed optimization,

This is not true, unfortunately. That's why it is called "low level virtual machine". It doesn't have things we'd like to do high level optimizations on, like dynamic_cast removal, etc.

Anyway, slightly extending an existing VM which already exists, is production-ready, is GPL compatible, is supported by a full toolchain (including interpreters, disassemblers, jitters, loaders, optimizers...) looks like a much better deal. Also, I'm sure Chris would be willing to provide us with all the needed help.

I also think CIL would have egregiously worked. I'm sure the reasons to refuse it are more political than tecnical, so it's useless to go into further details I presume.

Giovanni Bajo

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]