[LLVMdev] Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: */Makefile.am

[Vikram S. Adve]

On Oct 12, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:08:56 -0700
>> Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I agree that the current situation with llvm-gcc is not ideal, 
>>> but
>>> most of us just build llvm-gcc once and forget about it. The real
>>> solution here is to endow LLVM with its own C/C++ compiler and 
>>> bootstap,
>>> but that's a longer strategy.
>>>
>>> Reid.
>>
>> While I agree this would be the best solution, realistically I'm not
>> sure it will ever happen.  Writing a fully ANSI compliant C/C++ FE 
>> might
>> well be harder than the rest of LLVM combined.  "Full compliance" is 
>> the
>> operative phrase.  Coming up with something that mostly complies is 
>> much
>> easier, but pointless.  Look at how many years it has taken the major
>> C++ compilers to be as compliant as they are, and they're still not
>> perfect (not even g++).
>
> I agree, but I see the problem slightly differently.  C++ *is* a 
> complex
> language, and implementing it is certainly not something to be taken
> lightly.  The bigger problem in my mind is that it's a moving target:
> there are continuing revisions (TC1 is one part of it, there are more
> revisions for C++0x), and the standard library takes a lot of effort to
> implement efficiently.
>

I agree for both reasons.  Writing and maintaining a new, compliant C++ 
front-end is neither practical nor worthwhile, as long as our current 
one can continue to be used.


> If someone was interested in doing this, it would probably take a small
> team of people a couple of years to get something useful.  That said, 
> if
> someone seriously wants to do this, let me know. :)

Or consider taking on alternative, much higher priority, tasks such as 
writing front-ends for CIL or Fortran (90, 95 or 2000)!

FYI to all, Alkis is actively working on a JVM front-end.

--Vikram
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/