[lldb-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM should require a working C++11 <thread>, <mutex>, and <atomic>
vadimcn at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 23:52:34 PDT 2014
I think I can at least answer why the Rust project prefers to use
1. It does not inject dependency on libwinpthread.dll, which is nice.
2. Those who tried building LLVM with mingw-w64-pthreads, had reported
significant slowdown of the resulting Rust compiler (as compared to one
linked to LLVM compiled with the win32threads flavor). Profiling seemed
to point towards libpthreads' implementation of mutex. I had checked the
source, and indeed, it looked not very efficient (
http://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/bugs/344). It would be nice to get a
second opinion, though, maybe I missed something.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
>> The best thing for understanding their reasons is to ask them to speak
> I asked them directly, and this thread is a chance for them to speak up
> again. I *think* I've addressed the concerns of those I've spoken to
> directly, but there may be other folks or other concerns or I may have
> messed it up. =]
>> My experience on the MinGW/MinGW-w64 communities is that those who
>> choose MinGW is because of ignorance about MinGW-w64 and because there
>> are lots of documents on the 'net that references MinGW. MinGW is, to
>> all practical effects, a zombie project and there is no reason to prefer
>> it over MinGW-w64 nowadays.
> :: shrug ::
> I'm not such a user, and so I don't want to speculate as to what motivates
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev