Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40: > This page has no discussion about a CIL backend. > Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in common with an effort to build a CIL backend.
> The document in which Mark has announced the LTO briefly mentions > that CIL was not retained for dumping the IR, without giving an > explicit reason, so I think that we need a clear position from the > FSF whether such a backend is accepted to be part of GCC. > Yes, that's true. If anyone is interested in contributing a CIL backend, the FSF would have to approve it. That's not a decision we can make in this list.
