llvm dev - Feb 2008 - [LLVMdev] Slight troubles following "Getting Started" instructions

Just for whoever it maintaining the "Getting Started" instructions at
http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html :

The page is missing a link to the download section. Returning to the
main page at http://llvm.org/ , I found the Site Map, checked it - and
didn't see the download link (well, it's sitting right below, but
there's so much text on that page that I simply overlooked it).

The download page was the next challenge.It gave me source code at the
beginning, source code at the end, and lots of keywords about Mingw32,
MacOS, Red Hat, and another bunch of source code.
Only now that I'm writing up my experience I see there's an inner
structure to the list: LLVM, then LLVM-GCC 4.2, then LLVM-GCC 4.0. LLVM
starts with sources, LLVM-GCC (inconsistently) starts with binaries and
gives sources later.
Suggestion 1: Strukture the download list, like so:
* LLVM
  * LLVM source code (5.4M)
  * LLVM Test Suite (53M)
  * LLVM Binaries for Minw32/x86 (14M)
* LLVM-GCC 4.2 Front End
  * Binaries for MacOS X/x86 (50M)
  * Binaries for Red Hat Enterprise Linux4/x86 (42M)
  ...
  * Source Code (49M)
* LLVM-GCC 4.0 Front End
  * ...
Oh, and possibly a note why one would want LLVM, LLVM-GCC 4.2, and
LLVM-GCC 4.0, respectively. People usually know what OS they use and
whether they want binaries or sources, but those who're new to LLVM
won't know whether they will need LLVM or LLVM-GCC (and if they need
LLVM-GCC, they can't decide whether they need 4.2 or 4.0).

Suggestion 2: make the layout wider so the links don't wrap.

Oh, and please don't label the Linux binaries "Red Hat Linux".
Anything
with a primary label of "Red Hat" gets filtered out for me on an
almost
subconscious level since I'm running an Ubuntu box, so the primary
labels that I look for are "Linux" and "Ubuntu". "Red
Hat Enterprise
Linux" is quite a moutful, and the trigger keyword is almost last on
that line (and wrapped, too).
I'd rephrase that as "Binaries for Linux (tested for Red Hat Enterprise
Linux)" or something. (Heck, I'm not even sure whether it will run on
any Linux other than RHEL. I have no idea what differences there might
be between RHEL and Ubuntu; I surely hope none that affect LLVM-GCC.)

Just my 2c, in the hopes that it's useful to somebody.

Regards,
Jo

> The page is missing a link to the download section. Returning to the
> main page at http://llvm.org/ , I found the Site Map, checked it - and
> didn't see the download link (well, it's sitting right below, but
> there's so much text on that page that I simply overlooked it).
You are right that its missing from the getting started guide. I'll add 
it.
> The download page was the next challenge.It gave me source code at the
> beginning, source code at the end, and lots of keywords about Mingw32,
> MacOS, Red Hat, and another bunch of source code.
> Only now that I'm writing up my experience I see there's an inner
> structure to the list: LLVM, then LLVM-GCC 4.2, then LLVM-GCC 4.0. LLVM
> starts with sources, LLVM-GCC (inconsistently) starts with binaries and
> gives sources later.
> Suggestion 1: Strukture the download list, like so:
> * LLVM
>  * LLVM source code (5.4M)
>  * LLVM Test Suite (53M)
>  * LLVM Binaries for Minw32/x86 (14M)
> * LLVM-GCC 4.2 Front End
>  * Binaries for MacOS X/x86 (50M)
>  * Binaries for Red Hat Enterprise Linux4/x86 (42M)
>  ...
>  * Source Code (49M)
> * LLVM-GCC 4.0 Front End
>  * ...
First, from 2.0 and beyond the list has been pretty much llvm, llvm-test, 
llvm binaries (if any), llvm-gcc binaries, and then llvm-gcc source. The 
reason it is in that order is that we are trying to encourage people to 
download the llvm-gcc binaries versus compiling it themselves.

I can move the llvm-gcc4.2 source code up in the list if people think this 
is better... but the binaries will still be first and should be.
> Oh, and possibly a note why one would want LLVM, LLVM-GCC 4.2, and
> LLVM-GCC 4.0, respectively. People usually know what OS they use and
> whether they want binaries or sources, but those who're new to LLVM
> won't know whether they will need LLVM or LLVM-GCC (and if they need
> LLVM-GCC, they can't decide whether they need 4.2 or 4.0).
True. 2.3 will solve this problem since we will drop llvm-gcc-4.0. 
Otherwise, we expect people to read the getting started guide to 
understand what parts of llvm they need and what they are. The download 
page should not be cluttered with this information.
> Suggestion 2: make the layout wider so the links don't wrap.
This will be fixed with the website overhaul.
> Oh, and please don't label the Linux binaries "Red Hat
Linux". Anything
> with a primary label of "Red Hat" gets filtered out for me on an
almost
> subconscious level since I'm running an Ubuntu box, so the primary
> labels that I look for are "Linux" and "Ubuntu".
"Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux" is quite a moutful, and the trigger keyword is almost last on
> that line (and wrapped, too).
> I'd rephrase that as "Binaries for Linux (tested for Red Hat
Enterprise
> Linux)" or something. (Heck, I'm not even sure whether it will run
on
> any Linux other than RHEL. I have no idea what differences there might
> be between RHEL and Ubuntu; I surely hope none that affect LLVM-GCC.)
The reason its labaled RHEL is because I'm not positive it will work on 
another Linux distribution. I don't see why its different to have a label 
versus having it in the name. Its just more words....

I appreciate the feedback.

-Tanya

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 26.02.2008, 14:01 -0800 schrieb Tanya M.
Lattner:
> I can move the llvm-gcc4.2 source code up in the list if people think this 
> is better... but the binaries will still be first and should be.
Just make it consistent so people who don't know their way around yet
can quickly find what they're looking for.

I agree that binaries should be first if they should be encouraged.

I plan to run the test suite, just to establish a known baseline (this
is an amd64 machine, and things tend to be a bit less well-polished than
on stock x86 installations).
Does it make sense to
* first run the test suite with the binaries,
* compile llvm-gcc from sources,
* run the test suite again with the recompiled binaries?
> > Oh, and possibly a note why one would want LLVM, LLVM-GCC 4.2, and
> > LLVM-GCC 4.0, respectively. People usually know what OS they use and
> > whether they want binaries or sources, but those who're new to
LLVM
> > won't know whether they will need LLVM or LLVM-GCC (and if they
need
> > LLVM-GCC, they can't decide whether they need 4.2 or 4.0).
> 
> True. 2.3 will solve this problem since we will drop llvm-gcc-4.0. 
> Otherwise, we expect people to read the getting started guide to 
> understand what parts of llvm they need and what they are. The download 
> page should not be cluttered with this information.
That's a bit of a catch-22 situation for me. I'm still in the
"Getting
Started" phase, so by definition, I haven't read everything yet, much
less understood what I need.
I agree that cluttering the download page with such information isn't
optimal.
> > Oh, and please don't label the Linux binaries "Red Hat
Linux". Anything
> > with a primary label of "Red Hat" gets filtered out for me
on an almost
> > subconscious level since I'm running an Ubuntu box, so the primary
> > labels that I look for are "Linux" and "Ubuntu".
"Red Hat Enterprise
> > Linux" is quite a moutful, and the trigger keyword is almost last
on
> > that line (and wrapped, too).
> > I'd rephrase that as "Binaries for Linux (tested for Red Hat
Enterprise
> > Linux)" or something. (Heck, I'm not even sure whether it
will run on
> > any Linux other than RHEL. I have no idea what differences there might
> > be between RHEL and Ubuntu; I surely hope none that affect LLVM-GCC.)
> 
> The reason its labaled RHEL is because I'm not positive it will work on
> another Linux distribution. I don't see why its different to have a
label
> versus having it in the name. Its just more words....
Just to help people who're under brainwave overload :-)
The key rule here is: important keywords first, less important ones to
the right. In the case of Linux binaries, it's "Linux", then RHEL.
(I
agree it's silly.)

Thanks for the apprecation :-)

Regards,
Jo