Roberto COSTA wrote: > Ori Bernstein wrote: > >On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >said: > > > > > >>Hello, > >> > >>I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our > >>team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries > >>(compliant with ECMA specification, see > >>http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm). > >>Our main motivation is the ability to produce highly-optimized CIL > >>binaries out of plain C code (and C++ in the future), and possibly to > >>add some optimizations to improve, if needed, the quality of the > >>generated code. > > > > > >It seems that there's a Summer of Code student working on the exact same > >item: > >http://code.google.com/soc/mono/about.html > > > >Perhaps you could collaborate with him, or (as I believe the Summer of Code > >rules might require) build off his work after it gets submitted. I'd > >suggest > >you contact the Mono project about it. > > Thanks for the info. > A few days ago, the student posted a help request to gcc-help mailing > list (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-06/msg00018.html), which shows > he's at an early stage of the work.
Yi Wang, here is an early attempt to a RTL based CIL backend, together with the difficulties of dealing with such a low level representation, "GCC .NET---a feasibility study". Jeremy Singer. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on C# and .NET Technologies, pages 55--62. Feb 2003. http://wscg.zcu.cz/Rotor/NET_2003/Papers/Singer.pdf so I think that an RTL CIL generator is really not a good idea. > I think in my team we're at a more advanced stage, since we have ideas > about how to do things and we start having some prototype code. > I hope a collaboration is possible; I will certainly contact him and the > mentor of the SoC project about it. If there are restrictions imposed by > SoC rules, it's up to them to let me know. > > By the way, from the previous messages, I understand that the inclusion > of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted until the issue is > discussed and an approval is obtained. > In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a development > branch. Without that, it would be much more difficult to build a > collaborative, open and world-wide visible development environment. > > Not working on the development of the CIL back-end, or even letting it > stalled, is not a choice for my team and myself. > What is a choice is to share its development and the related > infrastructure in the most open way... I think it's the best choice, for > all parties; I really hope it's a viable one! > > Cheers, > Roberto
