[gambit-list] scheme on llvm

Harold Ancell hga at ancell-ent.com
Fri Jul 31 16:08:13 EDT 2009


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
>>>>>Lucier<lucier at 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
>>
>>or http://tinyurl.com/lqvy33
>>
>>[...]
>
>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

or http://tinyurl.com/krseaz

  [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




More information about the Gambit-list mailing list