mir VS Cwerg

MIR comes from the Rubyverse and isn't related to LLVM MLIR.

https://github.com/vnmakarov/mir?tab=readme-ov-file#mir

When you say a fork of LLVM, am I correct in assuming that you specifically mean a fork of Clang? I don't see how the compiler backend would affect support for language extensions, regardless of whether it's an exception to that such as Tcc, Cproc, the MIR C jitter, lacc, 8cc, 9cc, and chibicc. Most of those are not for production, excluding Cproc and Tcc (at least according to Suckless or Oasis).

MIR

Perhaps these have already been dealt with and I'm missing critical information. If so, my apologies. Great work, in any case.

[1] https://github.com/robertmuth/Cwerg/tree/master/FrontEnd#dis...

Cwerg has backend that can be used as JIT and is written with readability in mind. Additional documentation can be found here: https://github.com/robertmuth/Cwerg/tree/master/Docs

I defined a basic ISA-like IR for Cwerg. It has unlimited registers and no constraints on immediates.

entire compiler front end ast nodes

I was also going down the path of bike shedding concrete syntax for my language Cwerg before pulling the plug on that effort and just using s-exprs. I managed to make the s-expr quite succinct by carefully choosing the order of arguments so I can omit optional ones. Also very helpful was to use square brackets for list, e.g. (call fun-name [arg1 arg2]). This simplifies parsing a little bit and is easier on the eye. Here are some Code Examples

I am iterating over the languages features for Cwerg's Frontend which aims to be a low level language with about the complexity of C but with some of the comforts of modern languages. I am especially happy with the choice of adding sum types. Relative to C the current feature set looks like this: Removed: * arrays decay to pointers * bitfields * separate compilation (more of a backend issue) * pre-processor * varargs * implcit type conversions * (untagged) unions * ++/-- * comma operator * implicitly nullable pointers * goto