On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:23:29AM +0000, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Sven Barth wrote:
>
> >>An llvm target will move the optimisation burden away from fpc, which
> >>would be very interesting.
> >
> >While we would welcome a LLVM backend it is basically a consent in
> >the development team that this would only be an additional
> >alternative to the normal backends FPC provides.
>
> LLVM's target list doesn't look particularly brilliant compared with
> FPC's :-/
My concern also...This is happening with many projects I've seen. Everyone
wants the benefits of LLVM, but it leaves all but the most mainstream
targets unsupported.
> Are there any practical advantages to having both?
Personally I can only hope additional interest in LLVM will lead to more
supported platforms. I understand they don't have manpower for every
platform but as it is the narrow focus is certainly a concern, especially
when big projects like FreeBSD move away from gcc and make LLVM the official
"compiler of FreeBSD". Whether it's related or not, FreeBSD seems to have
back-burnered everything that's not Intel...
--
_ _
._ _ _ <_> ___ _ _ ___ ___ ___ _| | ___
| ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
|_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_| \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
