John, I'm am confused by your objections. Clang already contains a large amount of code for satisfying target ABIs. For example, Clang's implementation of the AMD64 standard is over 1000 lines.
PNaCl is no different. We have a specific ABI that must be satisfied in order to generate compatible code. Compared to AMD64, the code needed to satisfy ours is trivial. I have not seen any proposed alternatives to our current method that would satisfy all our requirements. While our ABI is not 100% finalized, until this patch is committed, we can't do any external testing with Clang. (unless we create our own branch, which we'd rather not) - David On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:56 PM, David Meyer wrote: >> I don't understand your last comment. Please clarify? > > > The discussion about how best to accomplish PNaCl's goals here is a necessary > part of the technical review of this patch. Please be patient; don't expect > the patch to be approved/committed until we agree that this is the right > technical approach. > > John. > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
