On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 07:43:15AM -0600, Kenneth Cochran wrote: > On Feb 28, 2013 5:23 AM, "Henry Vermaak" <henry.verm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:45:08AM +0000, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > > > On 2013-02-28 09:28, Marc Pertron wrote: > > > > > > > > We need better optimisations at least as much as fancy 123.tostring. > > > > > > > > > Bottom line.... optimisation work is just not as sexy and exciting as > > > adding the latest Delphi/Java/C#/C language features. I guess we can't > > > blame them for that. > > > > An llvm target will move the optimisation burden away from fpc, which > > would be very interesting. > > > > Henry > > Ironically this is the direction Embarcadero is moving. They've already > made the transition with their C/C++ compiler and there have been hints > that Delphi is next. In a way it makes sense. They get an instant boost in > runtime performance and can focus more of their resources on the compiler > front end, libraries and IDE.
Not just performance, they gain access to all the architectures that llvm supports. Henry _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal