[LLVMdev] Fw: Thinking about "whacky" backends

[Samuel Crow]

I keep forgetting to CC the list.  Grrr.


----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com>
> To: Nate Fries <nfries88 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends
> 
> 
> Hello again Nate,
> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Nate Fries <nfries88 at yahoo.com>
>> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 1:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends
>> 
>> bitcode is, indeed, platform-agnostic.
>> However, with any language using a preprocessor (IE, C and C++) or a 
>> similar mechanism of determining the underlying OS and architecture, and 
>> in the case of code using it for such a purpose, LLVM would output 
>> different bitcode. As I said in a previous message, replacing 
>> preprocessor conditionals with runtime ones does not seem like a good 
>> option to me. So this would be the simplest alternative I could think 
>> of. Another option would be meta-data, as I suggested previously as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not runtime checks?  The constant folding and dead-code elimination passes 
> would get rid of any redundant code in a later stage of compilation anyway.  The 
> important part, as I see it, is that LLVM already does constant folding and 
> dead-code elimination.  Meta-data might require more effort in the long run.
> 
> --snip--
> 
>> More flexible to the programmer, not to the system. There are many 
>> pieces of code where, to port between Windows, OS X, iOS, Android, and 
>> PC Linux/*BSD/etc would require a ton of preprocessor work. I'm also 
> considering that perhaps the real best option here would be to 
>> add a new language feature to C++ (ie, invent a new language that is a 
>> strict superset of C++) for a simplistic control flow construct that 
>> only executes code on the specified system and architecture.
>> __os(WinXP | WinVista | Win7, IA32) { [... 32-bit Windows code here ...] },
>> __os(WinXP | WinVista | Win7, AMD64) { [... 64-bit Windows code here ...] },
>> __os(Linux24 | Linux26, IA32) { [...32-bit Linux code here...] },
>> __os(Linux24 | Linux26, AMD64) { [... 64-bit Linux code here ...] },
>> __os( , ) { throw new not_supported_exception(); };
>> Of course that's only a rough idea and will need a ton of refining, but 
>> it should make my point fairly clear. 
> 
> 
> There are already many MANY wrappers for OS functionality out there.  SImply 
> choosing some of the more popular ones like wxWidgets, OpenAL Soft and Irrlicht 
> should make the job easier.  The hardest parts would be converting all of the 
> preprocessor macros into the new function one way or the other, whether it be 
> metadata or runtime checks to constant booleans, and converting the runtimes and 
> build environments to use the new wrapper.
> 
> If we're going to make a superset of C++, why not ditch C++ outright and 
> just write a code converter to a friendlier high-level language.  Sorry if 
> I'm not making much headway with you right now but I'm just trying to 
> save work by using existing code wherever possible to save work.
> 
> --Sam
>