> Well we don't need LLVM but we are going to add some (high level) > instructions to the mico32 instruction set and we'll want to add > support for the instructions in higher level languages. We could
This sound very interesting, can you tell us more about this project? is it pulbic o freely licensed? > just add support to GCC but LLVM seems a better long term solution > and we're gambling that we'll get more funding :-). We also have > some familiarity with LLVM internals but not GCC internals. > > From what we've read the GCC port is not great and still needs some > work - not that our port will be any better but I think it will be > easier to find and fix bugs in LLVM than GCC. Indeed, GGC port still need some work.. and loving ;-) I repeat if you are already porting LLVM for mico32, your effort is very wellcome :-) thanks for the update paul > > JP > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.milkymist.org/listinfo.cgi/devel-milkymist.org > IRC: #milkymist@Freenode > Twitter: www.twitter.com/milkymistvj > Ideas? http://milkymist.uservoice.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ http://lists.milkymist.org/listinfo.cgi/devel-milkymist.org IRC: #milkymist@Freenode Twitter: www.twitter.com/milkymistvj Ideas? http://milkymist.uservoice.com
