News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The .NET Native Tool-Chain by zvrba on Saturday May 10, 2014 @01:03PM (#7726076)
LLVM IR is machine-independent, so the NIH accusation is not really fair.

MDIL is described to be the platform's native machine code + some extension tokens (to avoid direct encoding of pointers, for example).

A similar LLVM IR derivative would no longer be by a long shot something resembling LLVM IR, so the property of being "derivative" would not buy you anything.

Re:The .NET Native Tool-Chain by gsnedders on Saturday May 10, 2014 @01:09PM (#7726091)
LLVM IR is machine-independent? What? There's plenty that isn't machine-independent, from the obvious (e.g., x86_fp80), to the less obvious (to create IR in the first place one has to have knowledge of the target ABI), what integer types are supported (i64 isn't supported everywhere!), etc.
Re:The .NET Native Tool-Chain by barrkel on Saturday May 10, 2014 @02:50PM (#7726487)
LLVM IR is not machine independent, and is documented specifically as not designed to enable portable IR.
Re:The .NET Native Tool-Chain by Sephr on Saturday May 10, 2014 @03:24PM (#7726581)
PNaCl's LLVM IR is machine independent and can be used standalone without Chrome.
Re:The .NET Native Tool-Chain by gecko on Saturday May 10, 2014 @04:29PM (#7726769)
While true in a narrow sense, it does so by targeting the lowest common practical denominator—in practice, a chip that looks a lot like a 386 or 32-bit ARM with no SIMD pipeline. That puts it as little more than a better GNU Lightning.
Re:The .NET Native Tool-Chain by Sephr on Friday May 16, 2014 @08:29PM (#7758741)