Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2013-05

http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

21 messages · 10 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Reinier Olislagers

On this page:
http://www.freepascal.org/future.var
this is mentioned:
Planned for later versions
...
LLVM backend support

Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line perhaps be removed.

Oh, and lazarus.freepascal.org+the forums seem down, but I'm sure people noticed that ;)

Thanks,
Reinier

Sven Barth
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote 10 lines
On this page: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var this is mentioned: Planned for later versions ... LLVM backend support Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line perhaps be removed.

Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM backend? We even had a LLVM branch some time ago! The only point is that a LLVM backend will be only one backend among the others unlike in the new Delphi compiler. We are not going to give up our existing backends!

Also this point is mentioned under "Planned for later versions". This does not mean the next (major) version, nor necessarily the one after it, but some version after the next one depending on when someone is going to work on it.

So in summary: no need to remove that point from the list...

Regards,
Sven

Reinier Olislagers
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote 7 lines
On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble > believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line > perhaps be removed. Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM backend?

Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend.

We even had a LLVM branch some time ago! The only point is that a LLVM backend will be only one backend among the others unlike in the new Delphi compiler. We are not going to give up our existing backends!

Fine by me, glad that decision has been taken!

Also this point is mentioned under "Planned for later versions".<snip stuff about time>

Yes, I think I understood what "later version" means...

Thanks for your quick and clear reply,
Reinier

Sven Barth
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote 9 lines
On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: > On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line >> perhaps be removed. > > Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM > backend? Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend.

Florian said that he doesn't want LLVM as the sole backend, because his preferred place of work are the backends. But if someone comes along and implements LLVM as an additional backend (even if it is some core dev) then I don't think that Florian will not allow the inclusion.

Regards,
Sven

Florian Klaempfl
to Reinier Olislagers: Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend. Fine by me, glad that decision has been…
Reinier Olislagers wrote 9 lines
On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: > On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line >> perhaps be removed. > > Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM > backend? Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend.

Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring duty :)

Reinier Olislagers
to Florian Klaempfl
Florian Klaempfl wrote 14 lines
Am 29.05.2013 06:25, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: > On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: >> On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >>> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line >>> perhaps be removed. >> >> Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM >> backend? > Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend. Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring duty :)

That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right?

Thanks,
Reinier

Michael Van Canneyt
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote 19 lines
On 4-6-2013 20:05, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > Am 29.05.2013 06:25, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >> On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: >>> On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>>> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >>>> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this line >>>> perhaps be removed. >>> >>> Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM >>> backend? >> Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend. > > Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the > backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring > duty :) That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right?

Florian is not. Jonas is working on that.

Michael.

Reinier Olislagers
to Michael Van Canneyt
Michael Van Canneyt wrote 26 lines
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > On 4-6-2013 20:05, Florian Klaempfl wrote: >> Am 29.05.2013 06:25, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >>> On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: >>>> On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>>>> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >>>>> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this >>>>> line >>>>> perhaps be removed. >>>> >>>> Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM >>>> backend? >>> Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend. >> >> Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the >> backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring >> duty :) > > > That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM > backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right? Florian is not. Jonas is working on that.

Sorry: Florian is not what? You mean writing an LLVM backend? Yes, that sort of shines through in the discussions so far ;)

Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite knowledgeable especially after the Java work).... but the main thing I was interested in was in whether there was support for inclusion for the backend and whether the statement on the Roadmap page was correct.

Michael Schnell
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote
Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite knowledgeable especially after the Java work)....

Does LLVM (e.g for a C frontend) provide code generation to Java Byte code out of the box ? Or are these two backends completely different projects ?

-Michael

Michael Van Canneyt
to Reinier Olislagers: Sorry: Florian is not what? You mean writing an LLVM backend? Yes, that sort of shines…
Reinier Olislagers wrote 35 lines
On 5-6-2013 9:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > >> On 4-6-2013 20:05, Florian Klaempfl wrote: >>> Am 29.05.2013 06:25, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >>>> On 28-5-2013 19:16, Sven Barth wrote: >>>>> On 28.05.2013 17:41, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >>>>>> Going by the discussions on this mailing list I'm having trouble >>>>>> believing LLVM backend support would be in the plans. Should this >>>>>> line >>>>>> perhaps be removed. >>>>> >>>>> Where in the discussions did we mention that we do not want a LLVM >>>>> backend? >>>> Florian saying he didn't want an LLVM backend. >>> >>> Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the >>> backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring >>> duty :) >> >> >> That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM >> backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right? > > Florian is not. Jonas is working on that. Sorry: Florian is not what? You mean writing an LLVM backend? Yes, that sort of shines through in the discussions so far ;) Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite knowledgeable especially after the Java work).... but the main thing I was interested in was in whether there was support for inclusion for the backend and whether the statement on the Roadmap page was correct.

The statement is correct.

Michael.

Sven Barth
to Michael Schnell: Does LLVM (e.g for a C frontend) provide code generation to Java Byte code out of the box…
Michael Schnell wrote 7 lines
On 06/05/2013 09:29 AM, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite > knowledgeable especially after the Java work).... Does LLVM (e.g for a C frontend) provide code generation to Java Byte code out of the box ? Or are these two backends completely different projects ?

No. But Jonas can build upon the high level code generator which he designed for the JVM backend and which he planned to design for the LLVM backend anyway (because he needs certain information that's not available to the normal low level backends anymore).

Regards,
Sven

Sven Barth
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote 9 lines
Am 05.06.2013 09:47, schrieb Michael Schnell: > On 06/05/2013 09:29 AM, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> Jonas working on an LLVM backend - great (he's surely quite >> knowledgeable especially after the Java work).... > > Does LLVM (e.g for a C frontend) provide code generation to Java Byte > code out of the box ? Or are these two backends completely different > projects ? No.

Just to clarify:
- No, LLVM does not provide byte code generation out of the box
- Yes, they are different projects with exception of the high level code generator

Regards,
Sven

Florian Klämpfl
to Reinier Olislagers: That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM backend, you're just…
Reinier Olislagers wrote 7 lines
> Actually, I meant/said I'am not interested in working on one. For me the > backend work is the interesting work, everything else is just boring > duty :) That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right?

I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and will not influence this :)

Reinier Olislagers
to Florian Klämpfl
Florian Klämpfl wrote 6 lines
Am 05.06.2013 07:37, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: > That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM > backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right? I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and will not influence this :)

That's clear enough, thanks!

Florian Klämpfl
to Reinier Olislagers
Show quoted text 9 lines
On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > Am 05.06.2013 07:37, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >> That's understandable - so to clarify: you're not opposed to an LLVM >> backend, you're just not going to write one yourself, right? > > I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and > will not influence this :) That's clear enough, thanks!

Of course I meant .... I can not and will not ...

Reinier Olislagers
to Florian Klämpfl
Florian Klämpfl wrote 9 lines
Reinier Olislagers schrieb: > On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and >> will not influence this :) > > That's clear enough, thanks! Of course I meant .... I can not and will not ...

Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I think ;)

Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote 11 lines
On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > Reinier Olislagers schrieb: > >> On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and >>> will not influence this :) >> That's clear enough, thanks! > Of course I meant .... I can not and will not ... Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I think ;)

English is the same. Don't worry about it.

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Howard Page-Clark
to Mark Morgan Lloyd
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote 17 lines
Reinier Olislagers wrote: > On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >> Reinier Olislagers >> schrieb: >> >>> On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>>> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and >>>> will not influence this :) >>> That's clear enough, thanks! >> Of course I meant .... I can not and will not ... > > Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this > particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I > think ;) English is the same. Don't worry about it.

I'm not a good enough linguist to know if English is "the same", but Florian's original statement in English is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean "I can influence an LLVM implementation, but I will not," or it could be taken to have an implied earlier "not" to mean "I cannot and will not influence..."
However it is a very curious construction in English, which immediately makes the reader think "What does he mean exactly?"

Mark Morgan Lloyd
to Howard Page-Clark
Howard Page-Clark wrote 25 lines
On 06/06/2013 08:32, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>> Reinier Olislagers >>> schrieb: >>> >>>> On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>>>> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and >>>>> will not influence this :) >>>> That's clear enough, thanks! >>> Of course I meant .... I can not and will not ... >> >> Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this >> particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I >> think ;) > > English is the same. Don't worry about it. > I'm not a good enough linguist to know if English is "the same", but Florian's original statement in English is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean "I can influence an LLVM implementation, but I will not," or it could be taken to have an implied earlier "not" to mean "I cannot and will not influence..." However it is a very curious construction in English, which immediately makes the reader think "What does he mean exactly?"

It's not explicitly said "can and will not", he did not say "can but will not".

Anyway, this is veering OT even for an OT thread, all I was trying to say was that his English was entirely adequate- at least to somebody who dates back to the time that grammar was taught as distinct from being allowed to "develop naturally" :-)

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Noah Silva
to Mark Morgan Lloyd

I think it depends where you draw the implied parentheses. :)

I (can and will) not ...
I (can) and (will not) ...

I also did a double take when I read that, but.... I don't think Japanese has any similar constructions.

Thank you,
Noah Silva

2013/6/6 Mark Morgan Lloyd

Show quoted text 56 lines
Howard Page-Clark wrote: > On 06/06/2013 08:32, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > >> Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> >>> On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>> >>>> Reinier Olislagers >>>> >>>> schrieb: >>>> >>>> On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and >>>>>> will not influence this :) >>>>>> >>>>> That's clear enough, thanks! >>>>> >>>> Of course I meant .... I can not and will not ... >>>> >>> >>> Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this >>> particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I >>> think ;) >>> >> >> English is the same. Don't worry about it. >> >> I'm not a good enough linguist to know if English is "the same", but > Florian's original statement in English is ambiguous. It could be taken to > mean "I can influence an LLVM implementation, but I will not," or it could > be taken to have an implied earlier "not" to mean "I cannot and will not > influence..." > However it is a very curious construction in English, which immediately > makes the reader think "What does he mean exactly?" > It's not explicitly said "can and will not", he did not say "can but will not". Anyway, this is veering OT even for an OT thread, all I was trying to say was that his English was entirely adequate- at least to somebody who dates back to the time that grammar was taught as distinct from being allowed to "develop naturally" :-) -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] ______________________________**_________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/**mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal<http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal>
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
to Noah Silva
Noah Silva wrote
I (can) and (will not) ...

This interpretation is wrong. For the sentence to mean this, it would need to be worded like this: "I can, but will not ..."

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho