Duncan Sands wrote:
I hope it was clear from my email that by "gcc" I was talking about the gcc optimizers and code generators and not the gcc frontends. If the dragonegg project shows that feeding the output of the gcc frontends into the LLVM optimizers and code generators results in better code, then gcc can always change to using the LLVM optimizers and code generators, resulting in a better compiler. I don't see how this is gcc the compiler shooting itself in the foot.
Note that better code is just one aspect of compiler quality :-) One should be sure to make this judgment over a significant body of code,
and not just on some bogus benchmarks :-)
