It is true that this approach requires a separate code generator for every architecture. That is not the same as saying that "retargeting will be hard" (which

It is true that this approach requires a separate code generator for every architecture. That is not the same as saying that "retargeting will be hard" (which makes it sound like DynASM somehow gets in your way). Yes, as I said before, if you have a problem that maps cleanly onto LLVM and you don't mind the weight that LLVM brings along, by all means use it! But you shouldn't think of LLVM as an "assembly generator library." That implies that it is far more general-purpose than it actually is. DynASM is actually an assembly generator library. LLVM is an IR, a set of optimization passes for that IR, and a set of target-specific code generators for that IR. The key point is "for that IR." DynASM is a tool that you can count on when no existing IR's like LLVM, .NET, etc. fit your needs. It's a lower-level tool -- LLVM could conceivably use DynASM to perform its own target-specific instruction encoding. DynASM is a small, focused tool that does one thing and does it well. LLVM is more of a toolbox that tries to get the 99% case right for its target audience. As a result, it represents a lot more compromises and changes in more fundamental ways over time (for example, it recently completely rewrote its register allocator). > Perhaps the preprocessor is syntactic sugar over a library that build the code representation as a data structure and there are ways to programmatically manipulate this data structure to implement optimizations. No, definitely not. The idea is that you perform optimizations before the code generation step. I didn't do this in the article because these were just simple "Hello, World" examples, but maybe I should write a follow-up article that illustrates how optimization fits into this framework.