similar to: [LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

Chris Lattner wrote: > If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing > you to use LLVM. No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing part could be supplied. > You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. > Please go inform yourself. Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it

me22.ca wrote: > You said that if I have to install GCC, you might as well > just use it for everything. That statement very clearly > doesn't apply anymore, since it's binutils that's the > dependency. Or if you still stand by it, it means that > you consider GCC to also be "incomplete". How do I get the necessary binutils on Windoze? Install MinGW or

Jon Harrop wrote: > Can you explain why you would like to generate DLLs on the > customer's computer rather than using LLVM as a JIT > compiler? Customers/clients unhappy with the inefficiency, extra CPU and RAM usage, and performance penalty of JIT. They require a faster, more efficient solution. The solution is to fully compile programs to native code at the time of

I wrote: > The Solution: Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, > capable of generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or > .DLL file, without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be > installed first. Michael T. Richter replied: > You will be welcomed with open arms by the LLVM community > when you write this. I look forward to your announcement > with bated breath.

Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but... Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: > On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: > >> See how gcc is invoked to generate the final executable >> file. This means LLVM is an incomplete backend, >> unfortunately. >> > That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls

Owen Anderson wrote: > There's nothing particularly stopping you from having your > installation package include copies of gas and ld, I disagree. gas and ld are not available on Windoze, except via MinGW. Yes I can make or tell my customers to install MinGW, but if MinGW is installed, then I don't need LLVM. (More about this further ahead) > You're welcome to think

Hi there LLVM is a great idea, congratulations. Do you mind if I give you a little bit of constructive criticism from the point of view of a developer who would like to use LLVM as a back-end? I will write this email from the point of view of MS Windows, but the same applies to MacOS and Linux. LLVM is difficult/awkward to use in a real-world environment/situation. To solve this problem,

Jon Harrop wrote: > So LLVM has relatively poor support for Windows, no direct > support for DLL generation and the exact opposite of your > performance requirements. I see. This news is disappointing to me. > I appreciate that you have customer demands but those > demands are very unusual (and, frankly, absurd!) but you > must try to meet them regardless. Very unusual?

On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: >> You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. >> Please go inform yourself. > > Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it confirmed what > I was saying: > http://www.llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#tutorial > > See at the end where it says: > ----------- > 6.Compile the program to native assembly using

On Tuesday 13 May 2008 06:49:34 kr512 wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > Can you explain why you would like to generate DLLs on the > > customer's computer rather than using LLVM as a JIT > > compiler? > > Customers/clients unhappy with the inefficiency, extra CPU > and RAM usage, and performance penalty of JIT. They require > a faster, more efficient solution.

> This means that LLVM requires an assembler and linker. Call it > GCC or binutils, it is irrelevant. The OP point is that LLVM > is not a self-sufficient tool on this aspect. > > Of course, if this is a serious problem for the OP, the > correct way of dealing with it is to take constructive, polite > actions for correcting it :-) I know one compiler (Free Pascal) that

Is this thread suposed to be a bad joke? 2008/5/10 kr512 <kr512 at optusnet.com.au>: > > Chris Lattner wrote: >> If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing >> you to use LLVM. > > No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM > makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing > part could be supplied. > >> You

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

On May 11, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > > Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but... > > Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: >> >> That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls >> the assembler and linker as part of it's execution. You are perfectly >> able to call the assembler & linker

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 11:17, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> >>>No, it's all or nothing. Once linked, they cannot be seperated (easily). >>>However, especially when using the JIT, there is little overhead for >>>running a gigantic program that only has 1% of the functions

On May 10, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Emílio Wuerges wrote: > Is this thread suposed to be a bad joke? I thought jokes were funny? ;-) -Chris

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

Hi, We have been working on porting llvm-gcc crosscompiler (basically I had to create new dummy target configuration with some minimal information about the our processor, endianess, type sizes, etc.) which compiles llvm bytecode (doesn't compile native binaries nor assembler) for our processor architecture and new llvm target for our custom processor. We already managed to compile also

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

Tanya Lattner wrote: > Your "point" has been made (regardless if the point has > changed over time). My point did not change, rather I just used the wrong name in my original message, or I stated my point in a manner less specific than people here would have preferred. > You feel the need to keep repeating that LLVM is not a > COMPLETE backend. A number of people did