[LLVMdev] Compiler Driver [high-level comments]

[Chris Lattner]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 21:31, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > Hi Reid,
> >
> > > Since there's been little feedback on the design document I sent out,
> > > some decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have
> > > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now!
> > >
> > > 1. Name = llvmcc
> >
> > I like llvmcc, but really have no strong opinion.
>
> I think we're slowly setting on llvmcs (LLVM Compiler Suite or
> Compilation System).

aka  llvm cool stuff

> I tend to agree. I'm a strong advocate of XML myself (on other
> projects). However, introducing XML would make LLVM dependent on some
> kind of XML parser. We could probably get away with expat (small, fast)
> for our purposes in LLVM, but there is still the issue of dependency. To

To me, it's not a matter of "one more dependency".  If it makes sense and
buys us something tangible, it would make sense to go with XML.  In my
mind, for our purposes, if the config file gets complex enough to need
tool support like this, we have already failed.

-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
http://nondot.org/sabre/