On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Jens Axel Søgaard <jensa...@soegaard.net> wrote: > 2011/4/10 Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org>: >> 25 minutes ago, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote: >>> 2011/4/10 Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu>: > >>> >> One advantage with the LLVM solution is that one is sure that the >>> >> semantics of the parts of Racket that are implemented in C will >>> >> be preserved. I am thinking such things as the numerical tower, >>> >> whose C implementation contains quite a few functions that are >>> >> non-trivial to implement directly in JavaScript. >>> > >>> > I don't know what the porting effort is to get Racket to LLVM. >>> >>> I hope that's not neccessary. Here is what I had in mind: GCC has an >>> LLVM backend. >> >> (Last time I checked it was the other way around: LLVM had a GCC >> front-end.) > > You are right.
Well, there's dragonegg. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
