3 ms·
From that email it sounds like there was more concern about the front-end side C/C++->LLVM-IR than the backend side, so this wouldn't affect that. As for the ba
by KenoFischer 10y ago
From that email it sounds like there was more concern about the front-end side C/C++->LLVM-IR than the backend side, so this wouldn't affect that. As for the backend side of things, I know nothing about Plan 9, so I can't comment if their dialect would require modifications to this could base. However, I can't imagine that making the changes to support Plan 9 natively in LLVM would be significantly more onerous than changes required to this backend. In fact, a lot of the ABI work may have been done already since I believe Go shares the Plan 9 ABI.