Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: A New Forth
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 23:05:18 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <20161007230518.648b98c7@_>
References: <9dc136b0-5a06-4bad-b719-0e94358896f1@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:51688

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
tabcomputing@gmail.com wrote:

> I am planning to build a new variant of the Forth language. I plan to
> do so in Assembly, but I am wondering if I might be better off doing
> that in LLVM IR. Anyone have any recommendations as to why or why not
> I should use LLVM?

Not I.

My guess is if someone can use assembly or C to implement Forth, then
LLVM's IR should work fine too, but then again, I've looked at LLVM's
IR only in a very cursory manner.


Rod Pemberton