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, Reid Spencer wrote:> 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.What is the difference between a "compiler collection" and a "compiler"? how about llvmcs "llvm-compiler system" or something else non-cc? :) -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 18:04, Chris Lattner wrote:> What is the difference between a "compiler collection" and a "compiler"? > how about llvmcs "llvm-compiler system" or something else non-cc? :)The difference is that most people associate the word "compiler" with a single language: e.g. the C++ compiler, the Pascal compiler, the Fortran compiler. But, this driver tool isn't the compiler for any language that LLVM now or will ever support. Other tools are "the compiler". What it does do is invoke those compilers. Because it can invoke many of those language compilers, even multiple on the same execution, the notion of "compiler collection" is pretty accurate. However, if you want to avoid the cc suffix, lets explore some alternatives: llvmcd - llvm compiler driver llvmci - llvm compiler invoker llvmcs - llvm compiler system (or perhaps "compilation system") llvmct - llvm compiler tool llvmx - llvm eXecutive 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/e09f8f28/attachment.sig>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > 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. > > What is the difference between a "compiler collection" and a "compiler"? > how about llvmcs "llvm-compiler system" or something else non-cc? :)I think that we can really pick any name that we want. We don't have to go along with "tradition" and name it "cc". Personally, compiler collection is kinda lame anyways. I'm all about something short though, so "llvmc" is my vote. Ok. So i voted, so now can we tally the votes and put this discussion to an end? ;) -Tanya