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

Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:28:05PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote:
> 2) llvm uses special "bytecode" that gets compiled into native machine
> code so technically speaking "classic" assembler is not needed for llvm/clang.

Hmm, what about assembly statements inside C sources or pure assembler
sources?  May be my definition of a "classic" differs from yours, but
for we need assembler at least for the .S files.  Do you mean that some
supplementary assembler should be added to the llvm/clang suite?
-- 
Eygene
 _                ___       _.--.   #
 \`.|\..----...-'`   `-._.-'_.-'`   #  Remember that it is hard
 /  ' `         ,       __.--'      #  to read the on-line manual
 )/' _/     \   `-_,   /            #  while single-stepping the kernel.
 `-'" `"\_  ,_.-;_.-\_ ',  fsc/as   #
     _.-'_./   {_.'   ; /           #    -- FreeBSD Developers handbook
    {_.-``-'         {_/            #