Hi all, I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2 is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too dumb to find it.) Regards, Jo
officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped. unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for some stuff. But this will only last until I can use 4.2. Andrew On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> wrote:> Hi all, > > I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too > dumb to find it.) > > Regards, > Jo > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:> Hi all, > > I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm- > gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too > dumb to find it.) >There isn't one. I can tell you that when I did the release testing that for most platforms there were no new regressions with llvm-gcc-4.2 on llvm- test. I didn't look at performance between the two though. Since LLVM 2.2 we have dropped support for llvm-gcc-4.0. -Tanya> Regards, > Jo > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Hi Jo,> I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too > dumb to find it.)development of llvm-gcc-4.0 has stopped: only 4.2 is being worked on. The version of 4.2 in the last LLVM release was already mostly superior to 4.0 IMHO. Ciao, Duncan.
Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Duncan Sands:> development of llvm-gcc-4.0 has stopped: only 4.2 is being worked on. > The version of 4.2 in the last LLVM release was already mostly superior > to 4.0 IMHO.So the recommendation would be to use 4.2 for all uses, yes? (Bootstrapping LLVM itself, compiling C/C++ software, whatever.) Regards, Jo
4.2 is *complete*. Are you looking for performance #? Since llvm-gcc doesn't use any of gcc's optimization and codegen passes it should roughly the same. In fact, that's what we have been seeing. We have formally deprecated llvm-gcc 4.0 as far as I know. Evan On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:> Hi all, > > I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm- > gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too > dumb to find it.) > > Regards, > Jo > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 09:45 -0500 schrieb Andrew Lenharth:> officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped. > unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for > some stuff. But this will only last until I can use 4.2.OK, that's a clear roadmap. Maybe the docs should be updated to reflect this status? They still present 4.0 as if it were the default that one should use. Regards, Jo
On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:> Hi all, > > I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm- > gcc4.2 > is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too > dumb to find it.) >Hi Joachim, We've officially moved to llvm-gcc 4.2 and are no longer keeping llvm- gcc 4.0 up-to-date. (Andrew keeps 4.0 compiling, but we no longer care about keeping it feature-compatible with 4.2.) -bw
Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 11:43 -0700 schrieb Evan Cheng:> 4.2 is *complete*. Are you looking for performance #?No, I'm just trying to bootstrap llvm-gcc. Even after that, performance will remain relatively unimportant for me for quite a while, and even then I'll want to compete with PHP (or Python, Ruby, Perl), and I don't think this will be a challenge. Regards, Jo