<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Nov 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Edward O'Callaghan wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>No, its up to them which backend they want to use.<br>Sounds like they think that GCC is super quick compared to LLVM. Looks<br>like another fud fart out of google to me.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Actually, after chatting with Ian about it, it's more of a case of the FAQ being poorly worded than them being anti-LLVM.</div><div><br></div><div>If you read it closely, it says that LLVM was too slow for 6g, which is their ultra-fast, non-optimizing implementation based on the Plan9 compilers. In this case, the assertion that LLVM is slow is correct: it's definitely slower than a non-optimizing compiler. They then <i>later</i> implemented an optimizing implementation, which they based on GCC because they had a team member (Ian) who is a GCC expert.</div><div><br></div><div>On the positive side, Ian seemed very positive and even encouraging that his GCCGo frontend might be retargettable from GCC to LLVM, so I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility if some interested community members stepped up to do it.</div><div><br></div><div>--Owen</div></body></html>