Chris Lattner - Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO (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]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 05:58:14PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:

I thought it would basically "only" replace the GIMPLE parts of the compiler. That is,

FE --> GENERIC --> LLVM --> RTL --> asm (trees) (trees)

This is certainly the only way to avoid losing functionality.

I worry that this path will bitrot as 99% of folk use the llvm path straight through to assembly on i386. But perhaps a config option to force the rtl path, plus some automated testing, can prevent that from happening too fast.

I'm not sure that's a real concern. Considering that (if people wanted to use the LLVM code generator at all) we would only be enabled for some targets, the mechanism would already be in place to disable the LLVM backend. If the mechanism is already in place, allowing people to disable it on targets where it is supported would be trivial.

It depends on who is going to invest these resources. Would you want to tell Apple they can't do this even though they can? ;-)

No, but we also might want to let Apple work on this for a year and then come back with something more concrete than "it should be easy".

At this point, that is a reasonable decision to make. The work will progress without outside involvement, it would just go *faster* with outside involvement :).In practice, all this discussion boils down to is: when (and if) we merge the LLVM work into the main GCC tree. It can be disabled by default while in progress if desired, but are we going to make everyone interested in it use the Apple branch?

The biggest technical problem I see with LLVM is actually the debug info. Frankly, I'm not sure I even want to consider LLVM until that's done. If it's as easy as Chris and Danny make it out to be, then they'll have it knocked off in short order. If not ...

As far as scheduling goes, we will probably start intense work on that in January (given that the holidays are coming up). Waiting until that piece is in place would be reasonable.-Chris

-- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

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