commit cecf04f009a68e8a3cd8a7ce4945245d177124c9
parent e1691d5c8231cf0a908c52e7ca44c40002e3f4c9
Author: Quentin Carbonneaux <quentin.carbonneaux@yale.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 19:11:25 -0400
cosmetic fixes in llvm comparison
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/llvm.txt b/doc/llvm.txt
@@ -6,8 +6,7 @@
Both QBE and LLVM are compiler backends using an SSA
representation. This document will explain why LLVM
does not make QBE a redundant project. Obviously,
-everything following is probably biased, because
-written by me.
+everything following is biased, because written by me.
- Scope
-------
@@ -20,8 +19,8 @@ than LLVM.
It does not address all the problems faced when
conceiving an industry-grade language. If you are
toying with some language ideas, using LLVM will
- be like hauling your backpack in a truck, but using
- QBE will feel more like biking.
+ be like hauling your backpack with a truck, but
+ using QBE will feel more like riding a bicycle.
* QBE is about the first 70%, not the last 30%.
@@ -42,7 +41,7 @@ than LLVM.
a uniform format after each pass.
On my Core 2 Duo machine, QBE compiles in half a
- second.
+ second (without optimizations).
- Features
----------
@@ -93,7 +92,7 @@ are a few things provided in QBE to consider.
Because QBE makes a much lighter use of types, the
IL is more readable and shorter. It can of course be
- argued back that correctness of QBE is jeoparadized,
+ argued back that the correctness of QBE is jeoparadized,
but remember that, in practice, the large amount
- of casts necessary in LLVM IL is compromizing the
+ of casts necessary in LLVM IL is undermining the
overall effectiveness of the type system.