> You can follow the progress here: https://github.com/colinbenner/ocamlllvm
Excellent! Just a few questions: - there are two different repos, ocamlllvm and ocaml-llvm (which has a commit history that make it looks like it is where the real development happen); which one should one follow? A wild guess after only a quick look is that the ocaml-llvm repo did not build upon your ocamlnat changes, and ocamllvm is about merging the changes on top of it; but I really have no idea. - you mention a "patched" LLVM; where can the patches be fetched? Do you plan to present changes in such a way that it can be submitted upstream? I think it is natural that you have to make changes to LLVM, the GHC people (which now have an experimental LLVM backend) also did, and I was under the impression that the LLVM people where quite welcoming of their changes, they are glad to see LLVM being used in a non-Clang-centric project. I think your patches could bring value to LLVM, independently of the success of the ambitious ocaml backend attempt. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Benedikt Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:58 , Gabriel Scherer wrote: > >>> I find the idea of making ocamlopt a GCC (or >>> LLVM) frontend the most sensible and constructive one I've seen in these >>> discussions. >> >> I found back some of this links thanks to the excellent "OCaml Weekly >> News" summary: >> http://alan.petitepomme.net/cwn/2011.08.02.html >> (Where Benedikt announces that he has a student working on an LLVM backend.) > > You can follow the progress here: https://github.com/colinbenner/ocamlllvm > > It does work for some simple examples already, but it's still very early > prototype quality and requires a patched LLVM. LLVM as such is not a bad idea > for the compiler backend, but getting things to work with stuff compiled by > the regular OCaml backends is the difficult part. We'll see how that turns > out. > >>> However, one barrier is the licensing: QPL is incompatible with almost >>> any license (even QT does no longer use it!). Has it ever been >>> considered to switch the "public" license to e.g. GPLv3 (which looks >>> constraining enough, and compatible with GCC)? >> >> Stéphane, I am surprised at how good your are at raising trollish topics ! > > I don't think it's a trollish topic raised by Stéphane. The QPL is a serious > problem and I fear many of us may already already be violating the terms of > the QPL, it would be nice to get rid of that issue at some point. The exact > license (GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, ...) doesn't matter all that much, > almost every other open source license is better than the QPL (just my 2c). > > Benedikt -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
