[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM
sabre at nondot.org
Tue May 13 02:20:44 CDT 2008
On May 12, 2008, at 10:49 PM, kr512 wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>> FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if the LLVM project
>> eventually grew more of native toolchain support (e.g.
>> assembler, linker, etc). It would fit naturally with the
>> growing scope of the project.
> Yes, it would, and it would make LLVM more popular and more
> usable in real-world situations.
Sure, there would be some people who would like that. However, you
seem to be under the mistaken impression that contributors to LLVM
share you sense of priority. It is not like there is any shortage of
things to do here. Who is to say that providing a "complete backend"
is more important than improving the code generator to produce faster
code? For some people, faster code is far more important than
providing a "complete backend". Who is to say that your priorities
are more important than they are?
Ultimately it boils down to who contributes code, and/or who pays
others to contribute code. If you would like to see LLVM have a
"complete backend" (again, by your definition) you should contribute
code to make it happen, or pay someone to do so. Telling people that
it is *now* their highest priority (because *you* say so) is extremely
discourteous, and unlikely to produce results in your favor.
>> I don't think that it is a high priority for anyone
> Then you are disadvantaging the LLVM project and holding it
> back. I see you are working on a C front-end "clang".
> Personally I think that a C front-end should be a much lower
> priority than delivering a COMPLETE backend.
> Another C compiler is not needed. GCC and MSVC already do
> that job, and you won't supplant them. The thing that is
> really needed is in accordance with the essence of LLVM -- a
> complete backend solution.
This is a great example of you thinking that your set of priorities is
higher than "my" set of priorities. How do you know what is important
to me, and why do you think it is ok to have the gall to tell me that
my priorities are wrong? You notice that I contribute code to make my
priorities happen, unless you do the same, it is unlikely that your
notion of a "complete backend" will ever magically materialize,
despite you arguing with people.
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>> If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing
>> you to use LLVM.
>> You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about.
>> Please go inform yourself.
> That was an unprofessional response as well.
How so? What aspect is untrue?
More information about the LLVMdev