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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh another thing, consider this question that some people will be asking: Why not use GCC to do what LLVM does, and skip the hassle of using LLVM entirely? ESPECIALLY considering that LLVM cannot be used without GCC. Even if you are using LLVM as a back-end only, for compiling LLVM bytecode only, GCC is still required to convert the "llc" output assembly .S file into a

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

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

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 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

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,

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.

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

> 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

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

I have 5 windows workstations and 1 computer running freebsd 4.4 I want to install rsync on the freebsd computer so I can use it to backup some files/documents on my windows workstations. I want rsync to run automatically every 6pm mon-sat. I wanna ask if there is someone in this list who can give me guidelines on how i can do this. And another question I have is do I need to install samba? i

> There's also then entire GNU toolchain, through MinGW and/or Cygwin. Which works perfectly right now without any extra tweaking :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

I am trying to get XDMCP working over SSH on CentOS 4.4 from a windoze box running Cygwin/Putty I have set Enable=true in /etc/X11/gdm/gdm.conf restarted the X server, logged in with Putty and X11 forwarding enabled. I then try to start the Xserver with the following commands # gdmXnestchooser localhost or # Xnest :1 -query localhost Both commands will successfully display a X window and show

I am looking at starting a project to make a toy language that is targeted purely at 64bit windows. I have never used llvm or anything like it i am just trying to learn new things. However there are several problems, as far as i have seen, with compiling llvm in 64bit on windows. So i was wondering if i compile a 32bit version of llvm and use that can my resulting compiler output 64bit binaries?