On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:> > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C mean? > > > > I dunno. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there.LLVMCC = LLVM Compiler Collection, a la GCC After all, it's going to be the "driver", like GCC, and unify front-ends, so I should be able to do: % llvmcc a.java -o a.o % llvmcc b.cpp -o b.o Right?> > For that matter, why llvmc? Its more than a compiler. It also (and > > mainly) links and optimizes. So, why not just "llvm" ?LOC : LLVM Optimizing Compiler. :) In case LOC doesn't have enough meanings already...> Hrm, I don't think we want to overload "llvm" to mean > yet-another-concept.I agree, but everyone at some point starts thinking of 'LLVM' as *the* compiler, so perhaps people ALREADY have that viewpoint.> It's already the name of the project and the IR... this causes enough > confusion as it is. What trouble could one extra little 'c' cause? :)I think some terminology clarification would be in order... :) -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 17:31, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > > > > > > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C mean? > > > > > > > > I dunno. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there. > > > > LLVMCC = LLVM Compiler Collection, a la GCC > > After all, it's going to be the "driver", like GCC, and unify > > front-ends, so I should be able to do: > > > > % llvmcc a.java -o a.o > > % llvmcc b.cpp -o b.o > > > > Right? > > Absolutely. The problem is that "C compiler" is what people think of when > they see CC. This we certainly are not. If we are really a compiler of > code, why not just call it llvmc? Also, just because GCC set a precedent > here does not mean that it needs to be followed. Their renaming to > compiler collection is largely due to historical reasons. >I actually like Misha's point here. Most people that have used GCC recently realize that the CC means "Compiler Collection" and not "C Compiler" which is appropriate given what it does. Since we intend to be front end language agnostic and the driver tool will support multiple front end languages, "Compiler Collection" is appropriate for LLVM too. I agree that llvm is overloaded and should be avoided. So its either llvmc or llvmcc. My vote is for the latter. Reid. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040802/4424f4bc/attachment.sig>
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Misha Brukman wrote:> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > > > > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C mean? > > > > > > I dunno. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there. > > LLVMCC = LLVM Compiler Collection, a la GCC > After all, it's going to be the "driver", like GCC, and unify > front-ends, so I should be able to do: > > % llvmcc a.java -o a.o > % llvmcc b.cpp -o b.o > > Right?Absolutely. The problem is that "C compiler" is what people think of when they see CC. This we certainly are not. If we are really a compiler of code, why not just call it llvmc? Also, just because GCC set a precedent here does not mean that it needs to be followed. Their renaming to compiler collection is largely due to historical reasons.> > It's already the name of the project and the IR... this causes enough > > confusion as it is. What trouble could one extra little 'c' cause? :) > > I think some terminology clarification would be in order... :)I'm just advocating not making the situation worse :) -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://nondot.org/sabre/