Re: [DotGNU]gcc?

[David Sugar]

The gnu binutils can also potentially be used to link object modules that were 
generated from a proprietary origin.  However, this is a different issue, and 
more one that is philosophical to the notion of compiling something from a 
provable original source that one can examine.  I am going to suggest that 
Bradley field this question, and in fact, I propose that we come up with a gcc 
FAQ for DotGNU that covers this and other issues so that everyone has a 
reference point to understand this and other related gcc issues.  This FAQ 
probably could include some discussion on the treecc toolchain as well.

Keith Poole wrote:

> Fair enough, but one thought that occurs to me is - if we have a VM 
> which handles IL in any form, this will be true, anyone could produce a 
> proprietary language which generated IL, and the .GNU VM would happily 
> run it.
>        Keith
>
> David Sugar wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Developers mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers