> I haven't heard of any major problems in converting LLVM IR to decently-performing assembler But normally when you create LLVM IR you can choose what your po

> I haven't heard of any major problems in converting LLVM IR to decently-performing assembler But normally when you create LLVM IR you can choose what your pointer-size representation is, as I understand. Again, I could be completely off base here; I've just read some of the docs and talked to people who have worked with LLVM, not worked with it myself. Please tell me if I'm wrong! The problem with PNaCl is not that it's not widely ported enough "yet", but rather that there are no plans for a way to run it on platforms what PNaCl hasn't been ported to. Compare this to JS, where you can get JS working on a new platform in fairly short order (e.g. by just compiling Spidermonkey, which is largely fairly portable C code and has a platform-independent interpreter). Now your new platform won't have a JIT yet at that point, so performance may not be great, but at least you'll have a fighting chance at using the web. You won't have that without a pretty large porting job if NaCl is in wide use.