[Info-vax] Future comparison of optimized VSI x86 compilers vs Linux compilers

[onewingedshark at gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 12:40:31 PM UTC-6, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/3/2020 2:34 PM, onewingedshark wrote:
> > 
> > Here's a question: how hard would it be to simply [re]write the
> > code-generator for the GEM-compilers to do VMS x86? Yes, I realize
> > there's a lot of hype around LLVM, and it would be nice to get the
> > optimizations, but this should be weighted against what you have
> > now.
> 
> I think VSI strategically wants to get on LLVM.
> 
> Modern compilers are very complex pieces of software. And for
> some languages they are relative fast evolving software.

This is madness.
It's literally building in dependencies to things which are still changing, much like the idiocy of "living standards" your full implementation can be completely undermined by the "living standard" making some sweeping change.

Also, VSI has access to some very good compiler technology, albeit somewhat dated (GEM), and once world-respected implementations like DEC Ada. -- IMO, They should play to these strengths first.
 
> Having VMS specific compilers will result on either compilers
> falling behind or VSI bleed out of money to fund the work.
> 
> Hooking into an external toolchain like LLVM is the only
> way VSI can afford uptodate compilers long term.

No, it's really not.
Look at the last option I gave; there's zero LVMM there. Granted, it would force other compiler implementers to either do what they're doing now [porting LLVM], or port their own architectures.