[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM
isanbard at gmail.com
Tue May 13 02:56:30 CDT 2008
On May 12, 2008, at 10:49 PM, kr512 wrote:
> Major client says using JIT is "a moronic strategy with
> unnecessary complexity and undesirable performance (CPU and
> RAM use) characteristics, with significant disadvantages
> compared to fully converting programs to native code at time
> of installation".
Ah! Okay, so "Major Client" said to do it one way and you are not sure
how to do that, so you bug us. You first start off by saying that LLVM
is an incomplete backend by pointing out that GCC is compleat, yet
LLVM still has to use GCC. It's then pointed out to you that you are
patently wrong in that regard, and that GCC also produces assembly
code, then runs it through an assembler and linker (both of which are
separate programs from LLVM). And so because LLVM is now on par with
being a "compleat backend" with GCC. You change and say that it's now
for customer's computers. And that you can't expect customers to
install an assembler and linker on their computers. (Of course, no one
was suggesting that you actually do that, but no matter.)
People mentioned a JIT as a possible alternative, but you dismiss that
because of some random statement by Major Client.
People say that you should (gasp) actually *build* LLVM, which will
give you the DLLs your Major Client so desperately needs, but you
won't use the suggested ways they mention, nor will you patch the VC++
project files, nor even submit a bug report. You just bitch and moan
and call us "unprofessional", while using inflammatory language which
itself is unprofessional.
So, either use the suggested ways to build LLVM, patch the VC++
project files and build LLVM, or submit a *proper* bug report.
More information about the LLVMdev