From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11771 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2009 22:15:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 11762 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2009 22:15:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shell.rawbw.com (HELO shell.rawbw.com) (198.144.192.42) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:15:50 +0000 Received: from eagle.syrec.org (c-24-6-221-126.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.221.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by shell.rawbw.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n9IMFmdo000446; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ADB9393.1060704@rawbw.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:15:00 -0000 From: Yuri Reply-To: yuri@rawbw.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090824) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard CC: java@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Can gcj be a Java front-end for llvm as well? References: <4AD8D502.1090205@rawbw.com> <1255774204.2568.10.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1255774204.2568.10.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 Mark Wielaard wrote: > When gcj/gcc produces sub-optimal code wouldn't it make more sense to > just fix gcj? Can you give some examples of such code? > It does make sense to fix gcj and gcc. However, since gcj only connects to gcc for code generation, it can also serve as a java frontend for llvm. llvm obviously needs Java frontend (just like frontends for other common languages). And why to redevelop it from scratch, if gcj is almost a perfect fit? I can't give a particular example of performance here now. But pretty much every time when I compiled large (c++) project with llvm I got better runtime compared to gcc. Usually 10-20%. I don't try to put blame on gcc here. I am just saying that the more uses gcj finds the better. Yuri