[futurebasic] Re: [FB] re: FutureBasic and Carbon [answers]

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : February 2010 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: PZ <pierrezippi@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:48:15 -0600
My 'contact' was customer service.

I am happy to ask for clarification, but it might help if you phrase the
question, since I have no idea what a LLVM is.


> From: Brian S <fblistserve@...>
> Reply-To: <futurebasic@...>
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:03:07 -0700
> To: <futurebasic@...>
> Subject: Re: [FB] re: FutureBasic and Carbon [answers]
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:27 AM, H. Gluender wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Pierre for asking and spreading the news...
>> 
>>> 3. Will the RB Cocoa version compile directly from source to binary
>>> or does
>>> it generate Objective-C/C code to be passed to gcc/clang?
>> 
>> Source to binary.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> 8. Does the compiler/linker strip unused code?
>> 
>> We remove a certain amount of it now but this will happen a lot more
>> once we
>> swtich to LLVM.
>> 
>> 
>>> 9. Is there a code optimization option as with gcc?
>> 
>> There are some optimizations now but there will be more with LLVM.
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> As Brian has noted already this set of replies is puzzling.
>> 
> 
> 
> Pierre - maybe you can ask your RB contact to clarify the apparent
> contradictions between #3 compared to #8 & #9 which mention LLVM. I'm
> assuming they are defining the RB syntax to LLVM and that is the plan.
> 
> 
> Brian S
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: futurebasic-unsubscribe@...