[LLVMdev] Slight troubles following "Getting Started" instructions

[Tanya M. Lattner]

> I plan to run the test suite, just to establish a known baseline (this
> is an amd64 machine, and things tend to be a bit less well-polished than
> on stock x86 installations).
> Does it make sense to
> * first run the test suite with the binaries,
> * compile llvm-gcc from sources,
> * run the test suite again with the recompiled binaries?

What do you plan to use this baseline for? You shouldn't see a difference 
in results if you are using llvm-gcc you compiled from 2.2 source and 2.2 
binaries.

>>> Oh, and possibly a note why one would want LLVM, LLVM-GCC 4.2, and
>>> LLVM-GCC 4.0, respectively. People usually know what OS they use and
>>> whether they want binaries or sources, but those who're new to LLVM
>>> won't know whether they will need LLVM or LLVM-GCC (and if they need
>>> LLVM-GCC, they can't decide whether they need 4.2 or 4.0).
>>
>> True. 2.3 will solve this problem since we will drop llvm-gcc-4.0.
>> Otherwise, we expect people to read the getting started guide to
>> understand what parts of llvm they need and what they are. The download
>> page should not be cluttered with this information.
>
> That's a bit of a catch-22 situation for me. I'm still in the "Getting
> Started" phase, so by definition, I haven't read everything yet, much
> less understood what I need.
> I agree that cluttering the download page with such information isn't
> optimal.

I agree. The web pages could be better. We'll try to figure out how to 
incorporate some sort of compromise.

Thanks again,
Tanya

>>> Oh, and please don't label the Linux binaries "Red Hat Linux". Anything
>>> with a primary label of "Red Hat" gets filtered out for me on an almost
>>> subconscious level since I'm running an Ubuntu box, so the primary
>>> labels that I look for are "Linux" and "Ubuntu". "Red Hat Enterprise
>>> Linux" is quite a moutful, and the trigger keyword is almost last on
>>> that line (and wrapped, too).
>>> I'd rephrase that as "Binaries for Linux (tested for Red Hat Enterprise
>>> Linux)" or something. (Heck, I'm not even sure whether it will run on
>>> any Linux other than RHEL. I have no idea what differences there might
>>> be between RHEL and Ubuntu; I surely hope none that affect LLVM-GCC.)
>>
>> The reason its labaled RHEL is because I'm not positive it will work on
>> another Linux distribution. I don't see why its different to have a label
>> versus having it in the name. Its just more words....
>
> Just to help people who're under brainwave overload :-)
> The key rule here is: important keywords first, less important ones to
> the right. In the case of Linux binaries, it's "Linux", then RHEL. (I
> agree it's silly.)
>
> Thanks for the apprecation :-)
>
> Regards,
> Jo
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>