| SPJ> Actually using C-- itself as an output medium keeps slipping down the | SPJ> agenda, mainly because no one asks for it! | | because you don't advertise it! :) if you will advertise the | following, preferably with less or more concrete numbers, then we will | know whether we want it or not. just asking "whether you want to have C | or C-- compilation path?" is not enough Fair point. I have not advertised it because it doesn't currently work. I'm not sure what priority to give it. We will use qc--, certainly. It isn't optimised for good code, so we will certainly keep the C and asm routes for the foreseeable future. Simon
Hello Simon, Tuesday, August 09, 2005, 6:07:37 PM, you wrote: SPJ> | or C-- compilation path?" is not enough SPJ> Fair point. I have not advertised it because it doesn't currently work. sorry, but you missed the point: if you want to know our opinion about adding this route, then you must ask in the form "this will give faster compilation and better code. are you want it?". you don's ask such question, as a result "nobody asks it" SPJ> I'm not sure what priority to give it. We will use qc--, certainly. It SPJ> isn't optimised for good code, so we will certainly keep the C and asm SPJ> routes for the foreseeable future. so, C-- will never be compiled faster than asm, and, at this moment, cannot give a better optimization than C? as a result, it's use will have no meaning until qc-- compiler will advance in it's optimization? -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com
participants (2)
-
Bulat Ziganshin -
Simon Peyton-Jones