On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:14:41 -0800, Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:> > Sorry for the sad state of the cygwin build. I had hoped to have it > cleaned up by now but many other things have been taking my time. > Although the build has been succeeding in recent days, I'm not sure it > will buy you anything. NONE of the nightly tests pass on cygwin.<ulp!>> Until I > can get some time to figure out why that is happening, I doubt the > binaries will be of any help to you.Ah, well. I think the right thing for me to do for the time being may be to work on my interpreter, and come back later to the task of targetting llvm.> I'll be looking at this in the coming weeks. Cygwin build support is > scheduled for LLVM 1.5 (March). When I get binaries that pass the > nightly test, I'll make them available on my download page. You can > reach that at http://illuvium.net/Thanks. That would be cool.> FYI, work progresses on the Win32 native port which you might also find > interesting. It might even get done before the cygwin stuff. Jeff Cohen > is working on that. Perhaps he can indicate the status of that effort.I recall reading on the llvm archives somewhere that there are significant performance issues with the cygwin platform. True? If so, the Win32 native version would probably be preferable. Actually, if it packages and deploys better, (as in, no requirement to install anything cygwin,) which I suspect it will, that alone would be reason to prefer the native version. Meanwhile I may just go get me a redhat machine. Are the linux binaries only for the llvm-gcc part, or can you also get binaries for the vanilla llvm part? It's hard to tell from the download page. If I may offer a humble suggestion from a prospective "customer", may I suggest that you *remove* options from the various build and download instructions? The best build-from-source instructions are something like "./configure; make all; make install"-- each instruction of the form "either do this or else do this"; "either put these here or put them here" reduces the chance of a successful build for the newcomer. Anyway, congratulations on your success so far and I hope you continue to rock. Marshall Spight
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:47:01PM -0800, Marshall Spight wrote:> I recall reading on the llvm archives somewhere that there are > significant performance issues with the cygwin platform. True?True.> Are the linux binaries only for the llvm-gcc part, or can you also get > binaries for the vanilla llvm part? It's hard to tell from the > download page.The binaries are only for llvm-gcc.> If I may offer a humble suggestion from a prospective "customer", may > I suggest that you *remove* options from the various build and download > instructions? The best build-from-source instructions are something like > "./configure; make all; make install"-- each instruction of the form > "either do this or else do this"; "either put these here or put them here" > reduces the chance of a successful build for the newcomer.Thanks for the input, we'll do our best to simplify/clarify those instructions.> Anyway, congratulations on your success so far and I hope you continue > to rock.On behalf of everyone, if I may, thanks! :) -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
Marshall Spight wrote:>>FYI, work progresses on the Win32 native port which you might also find >>interesting. It might even get done before the cygwin stuff. Jeff Cohen >>is working on that. Perhaps he can indicate the status of that effort. >> >> > >I recall reading on the llvm archives somewhere that there are significant >performance issues with the cygwin platform. True? If so, the Win32 native >version would probably be preferable. Actually, if it packages and deploys >better, (as in, no requirement to install anything cygwin,) which I >suspect it will, >that alone would be reason to prefer the native version. > >It's true. The native win32 version does not use cygwin in the slightest. It's built with Microsoft Visual Studio. If you have that, it's trivial to build (double click the solution then run "build solution"), but it does require that you have bison, sed, and flex on your machine. Prebuilt binaries are available on illuvium.net. It's usable so long as you are writing your own front end. There are serious technical issues standing in the way of getting llvm-gcc built natively on Windows. Also, only the JIT or interpreter is usable at this time. I haven't gotten around to getting assembler output yet that can be built with NASMW.> > >Marshall Spight > >_______________________________________________ >LLVM Developers mailing list >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > >
Strike that... the prebuilt binaries are not likely to be of any use to you. You'll need Visual Studio .NET 2003 to build it yourself. Jeff Cohen wrote:> Marshall Spight wrote: > >>> FYI, work progresses on the Win32 native port which you might also find >>> interesting. It might even get done before the cygwin stuff. Jeff Cohen >>> is working on that. Perhaps he can indicate the status of that effort. >>> >> >> >> I recall reading on the llvm archives somewhere that there are >> significant >> performance issues with the cygwin platform. True? If so, the Win32 >> native >> version would probably be preferable. Actually, if it packages and >> deploys >> better, (as in, no requirement to install anything cygwin,) which I >> suspect it will, >> that alone would be reason to prefer the native version. >> >> > It's true. The native win32 version does not use cygwin in the > slightest. It's built with Microsoft Visual Studio. If you have > that, it's trivial to build (double click the solution then run "build > solution"), but it does require that you have bison, sed, and flex on > your machine. Prebuilt binaries are available on illuvium.net. > > It's usable so long as you are writing your own front end. There are > serious technical issues standing in the way of getting llvm-gcc built > natively on Windows. Also, only the JIT or interpreter is usable at > this time. I haven't gotten around to getting assembler output yet > that can be built with NASMW. > >> >> >> Marshall Spight >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >