[LLVMdev] Is IR VM does make sense since llvm3 ?

[Frank P.]

Thanks Dan for your responses !




On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Pierre P <ploploplop123 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi llvm list !
> >
> > Everything is in the question.
> > I've read this discussion on the mailinglist  [LLVMdev] LLVM IR is a
> compiler IR.
> > But since llvm3 and type system rewrite, is it a good idea to rethink
> about a VM wich could run the IR bytecode directly?
>
> The type system changes you mention changed the way struct types
> are named and uniqued, but structs are still just structs. This
> change doesn't really make LLVM IR higher-level in any way that
> would significantly affect the issues discussed in that thread.
>
> >
> > llvm has differents bytecode from low level, to more hight level... So
> do you see some interest to have this kind of VM for one of this bytcode ?
> > Is it hight level enougth like java byte code ?
>
> Java bytecode remains much much higher-level than LLVM IR; this
> hasn't significantly changed.
>
> >
> > My second obvious question is about the bycode format, is it stable
> enought to concider using it as an 'archive' source/byte code ?
>
> Quite a few people are interested in keeping the bitcode format
> stable these days, so it will probably remain fairly stable for the
> foreseeable future.
>
> That said, as far as I'm aware all of the issues discussed in the
> "LLVM IR is a compiler IR" thread are at least as relevant today as
> they were then.
>
> Dan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120720/758b6e95/attachment.html>