llvm dev - Nov 2004 - [LLVMdev] Re: Notes on the release notes for the fifth public release of LLVM

Well Chris,

then I've to ask the guys who really have the hands into the guts of the 
VC++ code:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Henrik Bach wrote:

 > Hi Chris,
 >
 > I'm reading release notes for the fifth public release of LLVM and
came
 > across this line:
 >
 > "The LLVM source code is now compatible with Microsoft Visual
C++."
 >
 > which is almost true, if we could build the llvm tools by VC++. However, 
as
 > I see it, we are only able to build tablegen and an x86 backend able to
 > execute embedded llvm programs.
 >
 > What we have achieve for VC++ aren't bad at all. Just to mention the
fact
as
 > I see it.

Ok, I'm most interested in being precise.  Can you suggest something more
correct to say?

-Chris

--
http://llvm.org/
http://nondot.org/sabre/

_________________________________________________________________
F� alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk/

Well, Henrik has a point.  As of now, the only thing LLVM is good for
when built with VS is the JIT engine, and then only if you're willing to
write your own front end--or be satisfied computing fibonacci numbers :)
That doesn't make it useless, of course, as Morten will testify, but
the market for this level of functionality can't be big.  I do plan on
creating projects to build llc and lli (perhaps in time for the next
release) and that would help a lot, but without the C/C++ front end...

Yuck... what about the C runtime?  I can compile a C/C++ program on Unix
and copy the bytecode file over to Windows and then (eventually)
generate assembler that NASM can turn into a binary.  But what to link
against?  Microsoft's C runtime library?  C++ runtime is even worse, as
name mangling is completely different.  Then there's __cdecl vs
__fastcall.  VC++ exception handling is implemented in an utterly
different fashion than g++ also.  Any words of assurance :)


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:37:43 +0100
"Henrik Bach" <henrik_bach_llvm at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well Chris,
> 
> then I've to ask the guys who really have the hands into the guts of
the
> VC++ code:
> 
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Henrik Bach wrote:
> 
>  > Hi Chris,
>  >
>  > I'm reading release notes for the fifth public release of LLVM
and came
>  > across this line:
>  >
>  > "The LLVM source code is now compatible with Microsoft Visual
C++."
>  >
>  > which is almost true, if we could build the llvm tools by VC++.
However,
> as
>  > I see it, we are only able to build tablegen and an x86 backend able
to
>  > execute embedded llvm programs.
>  >
>  > What we have achieve for VC++ aren't bad at all. Just to mention
the fact
> as
>  > I see it.
> 
> Ok, I'm most interested in being precise.  Can you suggest something
more
> correct to say?
> 
> -Chris
> 
> --
> http://llvm.org/
> http://nondot.org/sabre/
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> F_ alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.dk/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

> Yuck... what about the C runtime?  I can compile a C/C++ program on Unix
> and copy the bytecode file over to Windows and then (eventually)
> generate assembler that NASM can turn into a binary.  But what to link
> against?  Microsoft's C runtime library?  C++ runtime is even worse, as
> name mangling is completely different.  Then there's __cdecl vs
> __fastcall.  VC++ exception handling is implemented in an utterly
> different fashion than g++ also.  Any words of assurance :)
OK, I know better than to ask because I already know the answer:  the
GNU frontends are going to generate code that expects to link with GNU
libraries.  Other vendors' libraries need not apply.  Case closed.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> Well, Henrik has a point.  As of now, the only thing LLVM is good for
> when built with VS is the JIT engine, and then only if you're willing
to
> write your own front end--or be satisfied computing fibonacci numbers :)
Okay, I updated the release notes, please take a look all. :)

If it still not accurate, please give me something I can put in there that
would work better :)

-Chris
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:37:43 +0100
> "Henrik Bach" <henrik_bach_llvm at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well Chris,
> >
> > then I've to ask the guys who really have the hands into the guts
of the
> > VC++ code:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Henrik Bach wrote:
> >
> >  > Hi Chris,
> >  >
> >  > I'm reading release notes for the fifth public release of
LLVM and came
> >  > across this line:
> >  >
> >  > "The LLVM source code is now compatible with Microsoft
Visual C++."
> >  >
> >  > which is almost true, if we could build the llvm tools by VC++.
However,
> > as
> >  > I see it, we are only able to build tablegen and an x86 backend
able to
> >  > execute embedded llvm programs.
> >  >
> >  > What we have achieve for VC++ aren't bad at all. Just to
mention the fact
> > as
> >  > I see it.
> >
> > Ok, I'm most interested in being precise.  Can you suggest
something more
> > correct to say?
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > --
> > http://llvm.org/
> > http://nondot.org/sabre/
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > F_ alle de nye og sjove ikoner med MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.dk/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.org/
http://nondot.org/sabre/