# Towards a second edition of the compiler

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/towards-a-second-edition-of-the-compiler/5582>\
**Category:** compiler\
**Created:** [July 21, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/towards-a-second-edition-of-the-compiler/5582 "2017-07-21T04:28:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dhardy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/dhardy/32/2399_2.png) [@dhardy](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/dhardy)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/towards-a-second-edition-of-the-compiler/5582/4 "2017-07-21T13:35:29Z")

</div>

Question 1: is it truely worth trying to use the same syntax tree/parsing code for the compiler as for IDEs, rustfmt, etc.? As matklad says, requirements differ quite a bit.

Question 2: though LLVM is the only option (as far as I am aware) available in the near future to generate well-optimised code, is it the best option for the typical edit-compile-run testing/dev cycle? There’s already been talk of using Cretonne as an alternative backend. (Of course, speed ups to LLVM builds are still welcome.)

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/towards-a-second-edition-of-the-compiler/5582)._