[cfe-dev] alternate clang driver

Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 10:59:50 PDT 2011

Op 24 okt. 2011 19:53 schreef "Konstantin Tokarev" <annulen at yandex.ru> het
> 22.10.2011, 01:47, "David Chisnall":
> > Adding a dependency on Python (or Lua, or what other buzzword scripting
language that you favour this week) for invoking an [Objective-]C[++]
compiler seems to redefine overkill.
> To the defense of Lua, well-written Lua code is almost as fast as C
without any JIT, and original interpreter is an executable sized under 200K.
So it's no more 'overkill' that shell scripts used by autotools, which are
definitely slower.

Here you're comparing autotools to clang?
This discussion is starting to make me feel sick. Clang needs a driver, to
find headers, platform/os/runtime libraries and drive a linker. No more, no
less, and this certainly does not warrant additional dependencies in my
eyes. I'm think a BSD-licensed clone/improvement of autotools may have a
place as an LLVM subproject if good and useful enough (which would be
extremely hard to do), but not in Clang, period.


> --
> Regards,
> Konstantin
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20111024/2197c637/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list