[LLVMdev] Files to lib/System/Win32

[Jeff Cohen]

I don't know anything about Interix.

It may be best to defer a true Win32 port.  It's not just the time it
would take to do it, it's the time to keep it up to date as LLVM
evolves.  The Win32 port will constantly break, and I don't have the
time to keep fixing it.  I've got my own time-consuming projects :)

That said, the architectural issues should still be addressed.  What
does LLVM expect to keep in /etc/llvm and where would it keep it on
Windows?  How will it handle the Windows custom of having spaces in file
and directory names?  (GNU make hates it.)  Why would it need to know
the user's "home" directory?  That sort of stuff.

I don't have cygwin or any other Unix emulator on my Windows system, so
I couldn't do validation.  I do my Unix programming on Unix :)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:22:34 -0700
Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:

> Jeff,
> 
> These are all reasons why the Win32 port doesn't exist today. LLVM is
> heavily influenced and implemented by Unix tools/concepts/facilities.
> Since building on Win32 will also be a problem, I think that we should
> just target cygwin as our Win32 solution for now and get that to work
> really well. I know cygwin is a slow pig, but at least we can get LLVM
> to work with it. We also have Interix which is another interesting
> approach. However, I don't think Interix has the tool support that we
> need to build LLVM, its just a Unix interface for windows machines,
> isn't it?
> 
> I agree that if/when the time comes to support Win32 natively, it will
> be a big job involving configuration, new makefiles and project files,
> and all the other Visual studio shebang.  I'm personally not up to that
> task as my Win32 skills are ancient and I have no interest in updating
> them. 
> 
> So, my $0.02 worth on this is that we ought to just leave the Win32 port
> alone for now. Most of us have Unix or cygwin and that works fine. When
> LLVM gets nearer to commercialization it will become someone's JOB to
> port it to Win32 at which time that will happen fairly rapidly. I'm not
> saying "don't do it". If you have the time, by all means, it would be
> VERY valuable. However, for now, it would also be valuable to just have
> you validate the cygwin build regularly.
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> Reid.