similar to: [LLVMdev] Compiler Driver Decisions

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 14:05, Vikram Adve wrote: > I have been at Microsoft the last couple of days and so couldn't > jointhe discussion earlier. No worries. I knew you'd chime in sooner or later :) > Here's my view of the name issue, and (thereason this is long), a > little about how I think we want users to viewthis tool: > > First, I think the name should

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > For the name, again, I'd be happy with either llvmcd or llvmgen, witha > > preference for the latter. The more important thing is to makellvm > > code be the default output. > > I'm not thrilled with llvm-gen because it has overtones of "code > generation" (which actually isn't far from the truth). But,

I have been at Microsoft the last couple of days and so couldn't join the discussion earlier. Here's my view of the name issue, and (the reason this is long), a little 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

On Tue, 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

> 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

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 07:38, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:17:24AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > I'm not thrilled with llvm-gen because it has overtones of "code > > > generation" (which actually isn't far from the truth). But, it > > > conjures up the wrong kind of tool ..

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:17:24AM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > I'm not thrilled with llvm-gen because it has overtones of "code > > generation" (which actually isn't far from the truth). But, it > > conjures up the wrong kind of tool .. something more like yacc or > > bison. However, I don't have any

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.

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

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 08:51, Misha Brukman wrote: > llvm-build or llvm-driver are both kinda long but at least they make > sense... Yeah, that's my sense too. > > As an aside, llava and llama are both taken, llvmize? llvminator? > llvm-emerge a la gentoo? Uh. No? > > > llvm-run - runs programs built by llvm-build > > Wait, is llvm-run the same as lli?

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

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 08:51, Misha Brukman wrote: > > > llvm-build or llvm-driver are both kinda long but at least they make > > sense... > > Yeah, that's my sense too. I agree, llvm-build or llvm-driver do have the handy effect of actually meaning something. :) -Chris > > As an aside, llava and llama are both taken,

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Vikram 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

I added a simple script called "makellvm" in the base llvm directory to build a library and an executable with one command. The script runs gnumake in the current directory, and if that completes successfully, it chdir's to your llvm/tools/<toolname> and runs gnumake there. <toolname> can be specified on the command name and if not, it defaults to opt. Examples:

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

Hi LLVM'ers, has anyone read the license details for MASM32 and understood how these fit in with Open Source projects, especially GPL? - As far as I can see - no one is allowed to license projects under GPL or at worst other OS licenses nor the deritives of the project, if you're using MASM32. Are the MASM backend compatible with the MS version of MASM or other not so license

Dear All, I thought I would chime in with some ideas and opinions: o Configuration Files If it isn't too much trouble, I think we should go with XML for the following reasons: 1) We wouldn't need to implement a parsing library. There are several XML parsing libraries available, and I'm guessing that they're available in several different programming languages (Reid, am I

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > I am trying to use LLVM to implement one register allocation > algorithm. I think I understand the code, and I've started my > implementation. But I am having a problem, mostly due to my ignorance of > C++. I am basically modifying the code of > llvm/lib/CodeGen/RegAllocLocal.cpp. But if I type 'gmake'

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 08:24, John Criswell wrote: > o Configuration Files > > If it isn't too much trouble, I think we should go with XML for the > following reasons: > > 1) We wouldn't need to implement a parsing library. There are several > XML parsing libraries available, and I'm guessing that they're available > in several different programming

dear all, I have a little problem I am doing a loop, witha grep function. sometimes it happens that have the following results > tmp <- grep("x", y) > tmp integer(0) how can I recognise this outcome? is.na is not working of course, so what else? thank you [[alternative HTML version deleted]]