similar to: [LLVMdev] Compiler Driver Decisions

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 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

> 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

Reid Spencer wrote: > 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

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 Wed, 4 Aug 2004, John Criswell wrote: > 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

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, 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.

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 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 Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > I actually like Misha's point here. Most people that have used GCC > recently realize that the CC means "Compiler Collection" and not "C > Compiler" which is appropriate given what it does. Since we intend to be > front end language agnostic and the driver tool will support multiple > front end languages,

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:21, John Criswell wrote: > In regards to Misha's comments about the automatic execution of bytecode > files, there are several ways to do it: > > 1) Have bytecode files start with #!<JIT/llee/whatever> (portable) > 2) Encapsulate with ELF > 3) Register the type with the kernel (Linux only) > > I don't really care for the llee

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > 2. MODE OF OPERATION > ==================== > The driver will simply read its command line arguments, read its > configuration data, and invoke the compilation, linking, and > optimization tools necessary to complete the user's request. Its basic I'm not sure that I agree with this. Compilers need to be extremely predictable and

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. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there. LLVMCC = LLVM Compiler Collection, a la GCC After all, it's going to be the

Adding a couple of lld folks. I helped Shishir debug this, the link line looked like: /home/sjessu/build/bin/clang -O0 -flto -o jcstest jcstest.o ./.libs/libjpeg.a and the issue was that libjpeg.a was created with the system ar instead of llvm-ar. It worked when recreating libjpeg.a with llvm-ar. I noticed that the lld code has some special handling for the case when there is a missing

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

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. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there. > > LLVMCC = LLVM

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:03, Chris Lattner wrote: > > 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 > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"? What does the extra C

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 15:03, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > 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 > >

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