search for: _enough_

...9;re not generating X86 code, don't use the X86 library. :) The > idea is that LLVM is broken up into libraries that are already probably > already too fine-grained. If you don't need something, just don't link to > it... This works as long as the libraries are fine-grained _enough_. They probably are so I'm not going to make an issue out of this because there are bigger fish to fry. > Well, in the long term we want to switch everything over to docbook, at > which point it should just be a matter of doing the equiv of "#include > ObjectFiles.html", and...

> While I understand the motivations you describe above, something about > this bothers me. As a tool provider the LLVM developers are trying to > provide small/fast/quick linking tools. The above approach helps with > some of that. However, I'm an LLVM user and a big part of using LLVM is > linking my code with LLVM code. When the LLVM developers opt to make a > .o

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > This works as long as the libraries are fine-grained _enough_. They > probably are so I'm not going to make an issue out of this because there > are bigger fish to fry. If not, they can always be split up later. :) > > Well, in the long term we want to switch everything over to docbook, at > > which point it should just be a matter of...

...9;re going to suffer very much because of a lack of them. one beauty of plain-text is that you can work with it in any text-editor, and that is one of the assets "marked" -- in particular -- uses to great advantage. so i think, even now, "marked" and "composer" have _enough_ of a combination of offline/online power that they can succeed over and above an approach that uses an online-only strategy... but that's my opinion, and i could be wrong, so if you disagree with it, and you are willing to bet on yourself, go right ahead... finally, we have your innovation --...