[LLVMdev] Re: question about gccld and external libraries

Chris Lattner sabre at nondot.org
Tue Mar 1 10:47:43 PST 2005

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Jakob Praher wrote:
>> To produce native executables that do not need the JIT.  The first option 
>> uses the native LLVM code generator, the second uses the C backend and a 
>> system C compiler.
> thanks for the info.
> what is the advantage of doing so?
> I suppose the at-link-time-optimization stuff, so I suppose that the 
> nativization happens at link time? (haven't done the -v on that). Otherwise 
> this wouldn't make much sense.

yes, this is primarily for people who want to use LLVM as just a C/C++ 
compiler that supports link-time IPO, but aren't interested in the JIT 

> In my case I am strongly interested in llvm as a low level vm (jit) for all 
> kinds of (bytecode/language) frontends. Like libjava and libmono. Plus I'd 
> like to experiment with it with regards to analyzing large systems. But I am 
> at the very start. I've also talked to gcj people at the FOSDEM and they 
> would also be interested in that sort of thing at least they need a decent 
> jit/dynamic compiler.

Ok, gotcha.  You probably don't want -native or -native-cbe then :)

> It should really be easier in the free world to bridge all those 
> languages and llvm seems a viable solution for that. I'll come with more 
> info on that.

Sounds great!



More information about the llvm-dev mailing list