[LLVMdev] Why IR portable?

[Samuel Crow]

Hello,

It sounds like you've got the right idea.  I tried to write a portable bitcode 
language once but it took too much of my time.

It is possible to write a target-neutral backend for LLVM.  That's exactly what 
Google is doing with Portable Native Client.  If you go to the 2010 LLVM 
Developers' Meeting website, you'll see a link for a presentation by Google 
representatives about it:  http://www.llvm.org/devmtg/2010-11/ .

I hope you have good fortune in figuring out how to write portable code,

--Sam

>
>From: 汶翰 (Wen-Han) <nowar100 at gmail.com>
>To: Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
>Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
>Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:27:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Why IR portable?
>
>Thanks very much for all of your answer.
>I was confused by definition of 'portable' by my own thinking. Now I Correct 
>that. 
>(ILP32 is in another project, It's my typo. Thanks)
>
>
>So let me make a conclusion about this.
>LLVM IR can be a portable language,
>just depending on our front-end configuration or origin language limits.
>Did I mistake that?
>
>
>Thank a lot all of you.
>
>
>
>
>
>2010/12/22 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
>
>Hello
>>
>>
>>> We all know LLVM IR is portable, but it uses ILP32
>>No, it doesn't use this.
>>
>>
>>> It seems it already assigned their sizes mapping with types.
>>> How can it be portable? Isn't it been written there?
>>Everything depends on how you generated the IR.
>>You might find this link
>>http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#platformindependent useful.
>>
>>--
>>With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
>>Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Best regards,
>Wen-Han (Nowar)
>