[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: CRC - a proof-of-concept Ruby compiler

From: "Andreas Farre" <d00farre@...>
Date: 2006-01-09 19:33:50 UTC
List: ruby-core #7083
Christian Neukirchen said:

> While we are at it, did you consider llvm?  llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

Honestly no. We were more concerned about evaluating how well C-- would
perform as the target for a dynamically type checked, object oriented
language. Also by actually compiling ruby to machine code we wanted to
break new ground, which we wouldn't have done with llvm[1].

Cheers,
Andreas

[1] http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/pubs/2004-Spring-AlexanderssonMSThesis.html


In This Thread