On 5-6-2013 9:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > >> On 4-6-2013 20:05, Florian Klaempfl wrote: >>> Am 29.05.2013 06:25, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >>>> On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: >>>>> On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>>>>> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >>>>>> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this >>>>>> line >>>>>> perhaps be removed. >>>>> >>>>> Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM >>>>> backend? >>>> Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend. >>> >>> Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the >>> backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring >>> duty :) >> >> >> That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM >> backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right? > > Florian is not. Jonas is working on that.
Sorry: Florian is not what? You mean writing an LLVM backend? Yes, that sort of shines through in the discussions so far ;) Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite knowledgeable especially after the Java work).... but the main thing I was interested in was in whether there was support for inclusion for the backend and whether the statement on the Roadmap page was correct. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
