Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standardcompiler?)

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:44:48PM +0100, Christoph Mallon wrote:
> Roman Divacky schrieb:
> >2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine
> >code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for 
> >llvm/clang.
> 
> This is an irrelevant detail for normal use.
 
yes.... but the point is that clang does not need "something that translates
mov ax, bx to machine code"

> >the chain with clang is: clang -> llvm bc -> native binary
> 
> This is just a kludge, because clang has no proper compiler driver, yet.

there's a work going on successor of ccc and ccc itself works for a lot of
cases even today (I use it for compiling freebsd)