On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Donnie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Pragmatically, though, I have two concerns with LLVM that I don't know how >> to address: >> >> 1. It's written in an unsafe language, and therefore is very difficult >> to include in a BitC runtime. >> 2. It is starting to look like we need our own optimization >> infrastructure in order to efficiently avoid JIT compilation. >> >> Neither of these is insurmountable, and we may find solutions to both as >> we dig into LLVM more seriously. >> > > Maybe C-- (C minus minus) can provide the flexibility you need? > Unlikely, and C-- is by far the weaker infrastructure. > One thing that clang does really well is proper error messages. This >>> is also, to me, one of the main attractive properties of python (although >>> the errors are at runtime). g++, on the other hand, has completely >>> incomprehensible error messages if you make a mistake with anything that >>> uses templates. In my opinion, it would be a good move to make error >>> messages a focus early on. >> >> >> BitC actually does a very good job with some kinds of error messages that >> are well known to be hard, and we are pretty good at identifying locations >> of errors precisely. The messages themselves could certainly use >> improvement, and we need to do some work on error recovery in the parser. >> None of that is as important as getting a first working compiler into the >> field. >> > > I am also glad to hear that BitC will do a very good job with error > messages. > Probably not at first, but we *will* pay attention to that. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
