Sandro Magi schrieb: > Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> Why? >> >> And what do you mean by "compiling to assembler"? I suppose that's >> compiling to x86, and there's lots of systems that are not x86, in the >> embedded world there even are a lot of architectures in use not targeted >> by gcc. >> C is today's (only) portable assembler. > > Not really. LLVM and C-- are both "portable assembly languages" of sorts. >
But they're much less portable than C. Nearly every architecture has a C compiler targeting it. That's not true for llvm or C--. Philipp P.S.: I hope the tone of my messages is not too unfriendly. It's just frustrating to see that for many architectures used in embedded systems programmers are stuck with C, and there seems to be no alternatives in sight. Not that I dislike C, but more choice would be nice. Let's take the Z80 for an example. An old architecture, still used in low-end embedded systems. There are some C compilers and that's it. So that leaves languages that compile to C. Nearly all of them were not designed for embedded systems, so the C code output from their compilers can't be used. I have heard of people try to use llvm's C backend for cross-compilation, but I have not seen any reports of success, and if usable at all it seems to be a pain to set up. And the situation is similar for other low-end embedded systems, the 8 or 16 bit type, with just a few dozen K of memory. I had hoped that bitc could become an alternative for such systems, but well, I'm thankful that there are C compilers and we don't have to write everything in assembler. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
