• BLS <nanali nospam-wanadoo.fr> Oct 29 2007
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Oct 29 2007
• Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> Oct 29 2007
• Clay Smith <clayasaurus gmail.com> Oct 29 2007
• 0ffh <spam frankhirsch.net> Oct 29 2007
• Clay Smith <clayasaurus gmail.com> Oct 30 2007
• 0ffh <spam frankhirsch.net> Oct 30 2007

BLS <nanali nospam-wanadoo.fr> writes:

LLVM advantages are well known, but IMO alternative D Frontends like DIL 
should have a LLVM backend because this will open us a backdoor to DOT 
NET via MSIL
Quote :
LLVM now has a new MSIL backend. llc -march=msil will now turn LLVM into 
MSIL (".net") bytecode. This is still fairly early development with a 
number of limitations.
End Quote
Problems? Yes indeed ...
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-March/008244.html

Your opinion ?

Bjoern

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

BLS wrote:
 LLVM advantages are well known, but IMO alternative D Frontends like DIL 
 should have a LLVM backend because this will open us a backdoor to DOT 
 NET via MSIL
 Quote :
 LLVM now has a new MSIL backend. llc -march=msil will now turn LLVM into 
 MSIL (".net") bytecode. This is still fairly early development with a 
 number of limitations.
 End Quote
 Problems? Yes indeed ...
 http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-March/008244.html
 
 Your opinion ?
 
 Bjoern


Unless you get your kicks from generating native RISC machine code, it's 
sensible. Though you still have to generate LLVM assembly, correct? I 
didn't see any higher-level means of interacting with LLVM.

Granted, LLVM assembly is high level.

Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> writes:

You could take a look at my LLVMDC compiler.

http://www.dsource.org/projects/llvmdc

It's not yet a complete D 1.0 compiler, but it's getting there. I 
usually check in bugfixes etc. (mostly) every day.
I'm not sure if there are any limitations to what the bitcode should 
look like when used with the MSIL backend, but probably it's doable.

And of course... Any help is much appreciated.

-Tomas Lindquist Olsen

Clay Smith <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

BLS wrote:
 LLVM advantages are well known, but IMO alternative D Frontends like DIL 
 should have a LLVM backend because this will open us a backdoor to DOT 
 NET via MSIL
 Quote :
 LLVM now has a new MSIL backend. llc -march=msil will now turn LLVM into 
 MSIL (".net") bytecode. This is still fairly early development with a 
 number of limitations.
 End Quote
 Problems? Yes indeed ...
 http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-March/008244.html
 
 Your opinion ?
 
 Bjoern


http://www.dsource.org/projects/llvmdc

Check it out.

0ffh <spam frankhirsch.net> writes:

BLS wrote:
 LLVM advantages are well known, but IMO alternative D Frontends like DIL 
 should have a LLVM backend because this will open us a backdoor to DOT 
 NET via MSIL


I don't really know. Whenever I need to generate code, I go via C because
it supports every architecture I could ever need (or in fact think of).
For a D backend the LLVM might have it's advantages, but I really can't
think of any. How is generating LLVM better than generating C source?

Regards, Frank

Clay Smith <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

0ffh wrote:
 BLS wrote:
 LLVM advantages are well known, but IMO alternative D Frontends like 
 DIL should have a LLVM backend because this will open us a backdoor to 
 DOT NET via MSIL


 I don't really know. Whenever I need to generate code, I go via C because
 it supports every architecture I could ever need (or in fact think of).
 For a D backend the LLVM might have it's advantages, but I really can't
 think of any. How is generating LLVM better than generating C source?
 
 Regards, Frank


I looked at the LLVM features page, and it says...

"A C back-end useful for testing and for generating native code on 
targets other than the ones listed above."

So, LLVM can generate C code, and it can do more. I suppose that's why 
it is better.

0ffh <spam frankhirsch.net> writes:

Clay Smith wrote:
 0ffh wrote:
 I don't really know. Whenever I need to generate code, I go via C because
 it supports every architecture I could ever need (or in fact think of).
 For a D backend the LLVM might have it's advantages, but I really can't
 think of any. How is generating LLVM better than generating C source?


 "A C back-end useful for testing and for generating native code on 
 targets other than the ones listed above."
 
 So, LLVM can generate C code, and it can do more. I suppose that's why 
 it is better.


Well, but there is also a C compiler with LLVM backend.
So if you really want LLVM code, you can generate it from the C code...

Regards, Frank