At 01:57 PM 7/31/2009, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Harold Ancell wrote:
At 09:52 AM 7/31/2009, Bradley Lucier wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Harold Ancell wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Bradley Lucierlucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
The last time I compiled the Gambit-generated C code with LLVM (which wasn't so long ago) gsi failed at startup. (I know this isn't what you're referring to, but I presume the LLVM compiler may have the same difficulties compiling the LLVM intermediate representation.)
Hmmmm; I assume you used the gcc front end instead of Clang?
I don't know what distinction you're trying to make; I got the C compiler from llvm.org this summer and used it to compile the C files in the Gambit distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Front-ends
[...]
Interesting perspective on that page:
Obj-C development under GCC was somewhat moribund and Apple's changes to the language were supported in a separately maintained branch.
Apple stopped contributing code to FSF gcc development when the code base was converted to the GPL 3 license. (Or, more accurately, they did not put any GPL 3.0 code from the FSF code base into the code base of their own version of gcc, which they have always maintained separately, and which is licensed under GPL 2.0.) Perhaps when and if Apple legal passes judgement on GPL 3.0 Apple developers will merge the two code bases again. But perhaps not, if they're putting all their work onto LLVM after hiring Chris Lattner.
Yes, for ANYTHING political Wikipedia is not to be trusted.
Anything having to do with Apple qualifies ^_^.
Thanks for the above info.
[...]
And the clang/LLVM new code base, made with the hindsight of gcc development, is a lot more tractable. One day maybe it'll be practical for Gambit-C and finding and fixing regressions won't be in the style of the poking at it with sticks that I gathered from reading your "fun with gcc" bug reports recently.
I don't know if you meant that literally, but I can't find any messages in my mail archives with "fun with gcc" in the subject line.
Not literally, I was referring to your gcc.gun.org Bugzilla reports, most especially:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33928
[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 30% performance slowdown in floating-point code caused by r118475
I found it educational (seriously, I'm not a compiler guy).
- Harold