On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 02/03/2016 11:07, Ben Coman a écrit : >> >> Back to Dimitris' original question, I wonder that the potential speed >> benefit comes not so much from using "C", but from leveraging a large >> body of work on optimizing passes at the lower level. I found a >> tutorial [1] to produce a toy language "Kaleidoscope" that generates >> LLVM IR such that "by the end of the tutorial, we’ll have written a >> bit less than 1000 lines of code. With this small amount of code, >> we’ll have built up a very reasonable compiler for a non-trivial >> language including a hand-written lexer, parser, AST, as well as code >> generation support with a JIT compiler." > > > What is costly in the Pharo space is the fact that Kaleidoscope rely on the > LLVM C++ infrastructure to generate the IR. And this linking to C++ code and > classes is hard to do.
Are you referring only to FFI interfacing versus C++ name mangling, for which "the C bindings in include/llvm-c should help a lot, since most languages have strong support for interfacing with C.[A]" or something more? [A] http://llvm.org/releases/3.1/docs/FAQ.html cheers -ben
