search for: llvmcs

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...

> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:05:16PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 18:04, Chris Lattner wrote: > > llvmcd - llvm compiler driver > > llvmci - llvm compiler invoker > > llvmcs - llvm compiler system (or perhaps "compilation system") > > llvmct - llvm compiler tool > > llvmx - llvm eXecutive > > I like llvmcs. Contrary to the IRC discussion, I am not sure I want a > hyphen in this ... Without a hyphen, it could still be the compiler >...

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > 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...

...ue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Brian Gaeke wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:05:16PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 18:04, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > llvmcd - llvm compiler driver > > > llvmci - llvm compiler invoker > > > llvmcs - llvm compiler system (or perhaps "compilation system") > > > llvmct - llvm compiler tool > > > llvmx - llvm eXecutive > > > > I like llvmcs. Contrary to the IRC discussion, I am not sure I want > > a hyphen in this ... Without a hyphen, it could st...

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:05:16PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 18:04, Chris Lattner wrote: > llvmcd - llvm compiler driver > llvmci - llvm compiler invoker > llvmcs - llvm compiler system (or perhaps "compilation system") > llvmct - llvm compiler tool > llvmx - llvm eXecutive I like llvmcs. Contrary to the IRC discussion, I am not sure I want a hyphen in this ... Without a hyphen, it could still be the compiler system, with the hyphen, I'...

...uages, "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/

...about how I think we want users to view this tool: First, I think the name should convey the purpose of the tool -- otherwise, it just creates a confusing acronym (and goodness knows we have enough names already, even though most of them are clear). Unfortunately this leads me to vote against llvmcs -- it's vague and (worse) a misnomer. A "system" to a program or a compiler driver or an invoker or anything specific like that. *LLVM* is a system; this program is a program with a more limited purpose. Of the list below, llvmcd comes closest to describing what this tool does....

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.

...Adve wrote: > First, I think the name should convey the purpose of the tool -- > otherwise, it just creates a confusing acronym (and goodness knows we > have enough names already, even though most of them are clear). Yes, I totally agree. > Unfortunately this leads me to vote against llvmcs -- it's vague and > (worse) a misnomer. A "system" to a program or a compiler driver or an > invoker or anything specific like that. *LLVM* is a system; this > program is a program with a more limited purpose. Of the list below, > llvmcd comes closest to describing what...

...ment I sent out, > > some decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have > > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now! > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > I like llvmcc, but really have no strong opinion. I think we're slowly setting on llvmcs (LLVM Compiler Suite or Compilation System). > > > 2. The config file format will resemble Microsoft .ini files > > (name=value in sections) > > I prefer the XML version of the config file format. It's well-formed and > there are tools out there that can parse it a...

...-o %out.bc</item> <!-- ... --> </group> </configuration> I think something like this satisfies all the goals: * simple and easy; recursive descent parser is a no-brainer * XML format with full DTD (RNG or XML Schema) that can be used by other tools to auto-configure llvmcs * structured so we can extend in the future Reid. On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 22:22, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bill Wendling wrote: > > I admit a bias here: I've worked with MS style INI files. They didn't > > leave a good impression with me. However, they do fit...

Hi Reid, > Since there's been little feedback on the design document I sent out, > some decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now! > > 1. Name = llvmcc I like llvmcc, but really have no strong opinion. > 2. The config file format will resemble Microsoft .ini files > (name=value in

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 18:13, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Unfortunately this leads me to vote against llvmcs -- it's vague and > > (worse) a misnomer. A "system" to a program or a compiler driver or an > > invoker or anything specific like that. *LLVM* is a system; this > > program is a program with a more limited purpose. Of the list below, > > llvmcd comes closes...

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bill Wendling wrote: > I admit a bias here: I've worked with MS style INI files. They didn't > leave a good impression with me. However, they do fit the bill for a lot > of applications. What do you envision a typical INI file to look like? I was thinking of something simple like this: [.c] compile = cc1 %in -o %out optimize = gccas %in -o %out.bc link

...- ... --> > </group> > </configuration> > > I think something like this satisfies all the goals: > * simple and easy; recursive descent parser is a no-brainer > * XML format with full DTD (RNG or XML Schema) that can be used by other > tools to auto-configure llvmcs > * structured so we can extend in the future Okay, if you get all of the benefits without the cost, go for it :) -Chris > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 22:22, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > I admit a bias here: I've worked with MS style...

...--> > </group> > </configuration> > > I think something like this satisfies all the goals: > * simple and easy; recursive descent parser is a no-brainer > * XML format with full DTD (RNG or XML Schema) that can be used by > other > tools to auto-configure llvmcs > * structured so we can extend in the future Reid, while I see the power and extensibility of this, it seems way overkill for what the driver will do. The driver should not be replacing Makefiles, which are the way to orchestrate a complex multi-step build. The driver really only ever nee...

...ation> > > I think something like this satisfies all the goals: > * simple and easy; recursive descent parser is a no-brainer > * XML format with full DTD (RNG or XML Schema) that can be > used byother > tools to auto-configure llvmcs > * structured so we can extend in the future > > Reid, while I see the power and extensibility of this, it seems way > overkill for what the driver will do. The driver should not be > replacing Makefiles, which are the way to orchestrate a complex > multi-step build. T...

...ion" 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,...

...e decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have > > > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now! > > > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > I like llvmcc, but really have no strong opinion. > > I think we're slowly setting on llvmcs (LLVM Compiler Suite or > Compilation System). aka llvm cool stuff > I tend to agree. I'm a strong advocate of XML myself (on other > projects). However, introducing XML would make LLVM dependent on some > kind of XML parser. We could probably get away with expat (small, fast) &g...

>> 1) a bit in the output is poison if flipping any set of poison bits >> in the >> input may yield different values for the output bit. > > This is the definition I'd expect. > >> For example (bitwise notation): >> ppp * 000 == 000 (since flipping any of the poison bits cannot yield >> a >> result other than zero) >> 00p + 00p == 0pp