Re: [DotGNU]gcc?

[David Sugar]

There are philisphical reasons not to do this and why this won't be done.

Consider this, what if one had a proprietary compiler tool chain for some 
special proprietary "X" language that happend to generate IL.  This would mean 
that one could then use gcc to compile entirely source secret applications. 
This would be a perversion of gcc.


John wrote:

> Keith Poole wrote:
>
> > There is an alternative, the virtual machine in .NET compiles the IL
> > into native machine code, so why couldn't the .GNU virtual machine use
> > the gcc back-end to convert the IL?  This would give the advantage of
> >  the good code generation of gcc, provide code generation for a host of
> > machines in one go, and allow toold such as gdb, to be used to debug
> > applications.  So the sequence of events to run a program is:
> >
> > 1.  Write the code
> > 2.  Compile into IL using the .GNU compiler
> > 3.  Start execution
> > 4.  The virtual machine converts the IL into RTL (Register Transfer
> > Language), passes it to the gcc back-end and produces machine code.
> > 5.  The produced code executes,
>
>
> Stupid thought of the day #6635
>
> I know zilch about GCC from any end other than as a user, but let me
> suggest that it might be easier just to be passing RTL around the net?
> IL would be passed around and compiled as you say, but our VM could use
> RTL as a base?
>
> How much work would it be to turn the GCC backend into a VM?
>
> John Le'Brecage
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers