On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 01:26 +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thoughts? > > > Thanks for woking on this. Any specific reason why using the LLVM bytecode > wasn't taken into account?
It was. A large number of alternatives were explored, including CIL, the JVM, LLVM, etc. > It is proven to be stable, high-level enough to > perform any kind of needed optimization, This is not true, unfortunately. That's why it is called "low level virtual machine". It doesn't have things we'd like to do high level optimizations on, like dynamic_cast removal, etc. --Dan
