Michael T. Richter wrote:> Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > they just form the bulk of available documentation.I began my original message saying that I was providing "constructive criticism". That means I want to HELP if I can. Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional.> The command-line tools are convenience wrappers around the > APIs, not the other way around.Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, unfortunately.> I'm sure the LLVM lead (Chris, was it?) will gratefully > accept any such functioning, tested code you can supply > that generates the native object format you prefer. This > is, after all, how open source projects work for the most > part.Your arrogant attitude is surprising considering that you are not even sure who the LLVM lead(s) is. Would love to contribute code to LLVM but circumstances do not permit it at the present time, maybe later.> So... here's a thought. Why don't you do that one-time > work and host the compiled package up on a web page > somewhere as a service to this open source community that > will so eagerly embrace it?LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft Visual Studio 2008.>> GCC needs to be cut out of the back-end picture.[...]> So... your world doesn't include "gas" or "nasm" or any > other such assembler? You know. The "gas" that GCC > itself uses to assemble the .S files?Then "gas" (GNU Assembler) needs to be cut out of the back-end picture of LLVM. If "gas" is required, then LLVM is an incomplete back-end solution. Also, "gas" is not available on Windoze. I talk about this in more detail in my other thread. As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that cannot be executed. To translate the object files into executable programs, a separate linker program must be used, and such a linker program is not normally available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze. See my other thread. Owen Anderson wrote:> have you actually downloaded and built a copy of LLVM? > I'm going to guess that the answer is noLLVM fails to compile successfully in Microsoft Visual Studio 2008. See the email by Razvan Aciu. The point is that LLVM is difficult/awkward to use in a real-world situation in Windoze. This situation should be resolved. Look at what the sqlite.org project provides, for example.
While constructive criticism is always welcome, nothing will change unless people contribute. Your "point" has been made (regardless if the point has changed over time). You feel the need to keep repeating that LLVM is not a COMPLETE backend. Fine, thats your opinion based upon your definition of a complete backend. Point made. Please move on. If LLVM does not compile with MSVS 2008, then please provide patches. We currently do not have many people developing on Windows, so unless someone steps up and helps, it will never get better. LLVM is an open source project. You can not expect people who work on it in their free time to magically do all the work that you require to make your customers happy. You have to do your part too. -Tanya On May 12, 2008, at 11:30 PM, kr512 wrote:> > > Michael T. Richter wrote: >> Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your >> attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, >> they just form the bulk of available documentation. > > I began my original message saying that I was providing > "constructive criticism". That means I want to HELP if I > can. Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional. > >> The command-line tools are convenience wrappers around the >> APIs, not the other way around. > > Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, > unfortunately. > >> I'm sure the LLVM lead (Chris, was it?) will gratefully >> accept any such functioning, tested code you can supply >> that generates the native object format you prefer. This >> is, after all, how open source projects work for the most >> part. > > Your arrogant attitude is surprising considering that you > are not even sure who the LLVM lead(s) is. > > Would love to contribute code to LLVM but circumstances do > not permit it at the present time, maybe later. > >> So... here's a thought. Why don't you do that one-time >> work and host the compiled package up on a web page >> somewhere as a service to this open source community that >> will so eagerly embrace it? > > LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft > Visual Studio 2008. > >>> GCC needs to be cut out of the back-end picture. > [...] >> So... your world doesn't include "gas" or "nasm" or any >> other such assembler? You know. The "gas" that GCC >> itself uses to assemble the .S files? > > Then "gas" (GNU Assembler) needs to be cut out of the > back-end picture of LLVM. If "gas" is required, then LLVM > is an incomplete back-end solution. Also, "gas" is not > available on Windoze. I talk about this in more detail in > my other thread. > > As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that > cannot be executed. To translate the object files into > executable programs, a separate linker program must be used, > and such a linker program is not normally > available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze. > See my other thread. > > Owen Anderson wrote: >> have you actually downloaded and built a copy of LLVM? >> I'm going to guess that the answer is no > > LLVM fails to compile successfully in Microsoft Visual > Studio 2008. See the email by Razvan Aciu. The point is > that LLVM is difficult/awkward to use in a real-world > situation in Windoze. This situation should be resolved. > > Look at what the sqlite.org project provides, for example. > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On May 13, 2008, at 1:30 AM, kr512 wrote:> > Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, > unfortunately.This is exactly why I asked if you had downloaded and compiled it. If you had, you might have noticed that it does produce a set of ready-to- use shared libraries. I'm sorry that it did not build for you under Visual Studio, but patches are welcome. In the mean time, please feel free to use the supported alternative of compiling under MinGW. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/ad4bfb9b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4260 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/ad4bfb9b/attachment.bin>
On May 12, 2008, at 11:30 PM, kr512 wrote:> Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional. > >> So... here's a thought. Why don't you do that one-time >> work and host the compiled package up on a web page >> somewhere as a service to this open source community that >> will so eagerly embrace it? > > LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft > Visual Studio 2008. >Patches accepted.> As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that > cannot be executed. To translate the object files into > executable programs, a separate linker program must be used, > and such a linker program is not normally > available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze. > See my other thread. >What is this "Windoze" of which you speak? -bw
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote:> Michael T. Richter wrote: > > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > > they just form the bulk of available documentation.> I began my original message saying that I was providing > "constructive criticism". That means I want to HELP if I > can. Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional.When you pay me you can harp on my "professionalism". Until then you can <Mr. Garrison>go to Hell and die</Mr. Garrison>. I am at best a hobbyist with LLVM at this point, using it for my own entertainment and edification. (You could stand to do a bit of that latter part, incidentally, given the sheer, rampant incompetence and ignorance you've shown so far in EVERY sphere of human endeavour you've participated in.)> > The command-line tools are convenience wrappers around the > > APIs, not the other way around.> Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, > unfortunately.So compile it and make it so! Jesus! Is this so difficult to get through your head?> > I'm sure the LLVM lead (Chris, was it?) will gratefully > > accept any such functioning, tested code you can supply > > that generates the native object format you prefer. This > > is, after all, how open source projects work for the most > > part.> Your arrogant attitude is surprising considering that you > are not even sure who the LLVM lead(s) is.My attitude matches my conversational partner. I'm a social mirror that way.> Would love to contribute code to LLVM but circumstances do > not permit it at the present time, maybe later.So put up or shut up. And since you just said you're not able to put up....> > So... here's a thought. Why don't you do that one-time > > work and host the compiled package up on a web page > > somewhere as a service to this open source community that > > will so eagerly embrace it?> LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft > Visual Studio 2008.So why don't you do that one-time work and host the ... Is there an echo here?> >> GCC needs to be cut out of the back-end picture. > [...] > > So... your world doesn't include "gas" or "nasm" or any > > other such assembler? You know. The "gas" that GCC > > itself uses to assemble the .S files?> Then "gas" (GNU Assembler) needs to be cut out of the > back-end picture of LLVM. If "gas" is required, then LLVM > is an incomplete back-end solution.Just like the GCC you were holding up as an example of a complete back-end solution. Logic not a strong point in your part of the world?> Also, "gas" is not > available on Windoze.http://tinyurl.com/64vnua> As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that > cannot be executed. To translate the object files into > executable programs, a separate linker program must be used, > and such a linker program is not normally > available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze. > See my other thread.And see where the other people in the other thread tell you to just redistribute the assembler and linker as part of your god-damned project! Are you really this thick? -- Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter at gmail.com> (GoogleTalk: ttmrichter at gmail.com) Never, ever, ever let systems-level engineers do human interaction design unless they have displayed a proven secondary talent in that area. Their opinion of what represents good human-computer interaction tends to be a bit off-track. (Bruce Tognazzini) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/8d918bba/attachment.html> -------------- 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/20080513/8d918bba/attachment.sig>
Can people stop this? The tone is going worse and worse. LLVM used to have a friendly and collegial mailing list. If you feel that someone is trolling you, don't answer. Even if someone is stepping onto your toes: ignore it. You'll be memorized as the wiser person ...
OK, this thread is getting nasty. If you continue in this manner, I will have to start banning people from the list. The LLVM mailing list is not a place for insults. Please, let this thread die. -Tanya On Tue, 13 May 2008, Michael T. Richter wrote:> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote: > >> Michael T. Richter wrote: >>> Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your >>> attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, >>> they just form the bulk of available documentation. > > > >> I began my original message saying that I was providing >> "constructive criticism". That means I want to HELP if I >> can. Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional. > > > > When you pay me you can harp on my "professionalism". Until then you > can <Mr. Garrison>go to Hell and die</Mr. Garrison>. I am at best a > hobbyist with LLVM at this point, using it for my own entertainment and > edification. (You could stand to do a bit of that latter part, > incidentally, given the sheer, rampant incompetence and ignorance you've > shown so far in EVERY sphere of human endeavour you've participated in.) > > >>> The command-line tools are convenience wrappers around the >>> APIs, not the other way around. > > > >> Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, >> unfortunately. > > > So compile it and make it so! Jesus! Is this so difficult to get > through your head? > > >>> I'm sure the LLVM lead (Chris, was it?) will gratefully >>> accept any such functioning, tested code you can supply >>> that generates the native object format you prefer. This >>> is, after all, how open source projects work for the most >>> part. > > > >> Your arrogant attitude is surprising considering that you >> are not even sure who the LLVM lead(s) is. > > > My attitude matches my conversational partner. I'm a social mirror that > way. > > >> Would love to contribute code to LLVM but circumstances do >> not permit it at the present time, maybe later. > > > > So put up or shut up. And since you just said you're not able to put > up.... > > >>> So... here's a thought. Why don't you do that one-time >>> work and host the compiled package up on a web page >>> somewhere as a service to this open source community that >>> will so eagerly embrace it? > > > >> LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft >> Visual Studio 2008. > > > So why don't you do that one-time work and host the ... Is there an > echo here? > > >>>> GCC needs to be cut out of the back-end picture. >> [...] >>> So... your world doesn't include "gas" or "nasm" or any >>> other such assembler? You know. The "gas" that GCC >>> itself uses to assemble the .S files? > > > >> Then "gas" (GNU Assembler) needs to be cut out of the >> back-end picture of LLVM. If "gas" is required, then LLVM >> is an incomplete back-end solution. > > > Just like the GCC you were holding up as an example of a complete > back-end solution. Logic not a strong point in your part of the world? > > >> Also, "gas" is not >> available on Windoze. > > > http://tinyurl.com/64vnua > > >> As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that >> cannot be executed. To translate the object files into >> executable programs, a separate linker program must be used, >> and such a linker program is not normally >> available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze. >> See my other thread. > > > And see where the other people in the other thread tell you to just > redistribute the assembler and linker as part of your god-damned > project! Are you really this thick? > >
Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> writes:> On May 13, 2008, at 1:30 AM, kr512 wrote: >> >> Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, >> unfortunately. > > This is exactly why I asked if you had downloaded and compiled it. If > you had, you might have noticed that it does produce a set of ready-to- > use shared libraries. I'm sorry that it did not build for you under > Visual Studio, but patches are welcome. In the mean time, please feel > free to use the supported alternative of compiling under MinGW.Last time I checked, building LLVM on Windows (MinGW or MSVC) did not produce dlls. Has this changed? I was succesful converting the libraries produced by MinGW to dlls, though. -- Oscar