2010/3/11 Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>: > Just went back to see what the state of C-- is these days. Regrettably it > seems like something we shouldn't use, for two reasons: > > 1. The discussion list is nearly idle. > 2. The only current implemenation relies on ML, which seems like a bad > dependency for us. > > LLVM, by contrast, is alive, well, and implemented in an unsafe language. Oh > well. > > shap
I found some interesting pages from the GHC wiki: - The LLVM backend actually uses a modified version of LLVM. [1] - Their new codegen still uses Cmm.[2] I guess that Cmm is considered a somewhat stable intermediate language due to the number of backends they have. [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/Backends/LLVM/Issues [2] http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/NewCodeGenPipeline Now that I think of it, is there a compelling reason not to use GHC for native code compilation? It is stable and in active development. They have a high-end garbage collector tuned for functional programs and a C backend. Many recent languages such as Agda actually target Haskell. GHC is big, but it's good and implemented in a safe language. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
