@johnregehr @bmastenbrook yes. LLVM is patterned for and after mainstreamish architectures, so it's just as valid here
-
-
Replying to @whitequark
@johnregehr@bmastenbrook ... well, somewhat less valid, because LLVM IR has UB in its semantics. maybe if you don't use opt2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark
@whitequark@johnregehr@bmastenbrook note: a lot of what people still need *actual* assembly for is clever use of SIMD instructions2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @elwoz
@elwoz@whitequark@johnregehr@bmastenbrook The only thing ppl _actually_ need asm for is stuff _not representable_ in C.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker I take issue to the statement that we don't need alternatives to C1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
@whitequark Replace "C" by your favorite HLL. Same principle applies.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker I agree then; but also the discussion is centered around a hypothetical HLL that we call "portable assembly"2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark
@whitequark To me, part of the definition of "portable assembly" is that it _not_ be a HLL.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
@RichFelker portability requires abstraction, which is inevitably a high-level feature. the question is to what level1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
@whitequark I consider a language HL if it lacks direct correspondence between source statements & output machine insns ("as if rule").2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@whitequark Asm is asm because I can do meaningful computations on labels/pc, control stack/reg usage in ways compat with async intr, etc.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.