[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

[Chandler Carruth]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:55 PM, kr512 <kr512 at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> How do I get the necessary binutils on Windoze?  Install
> MinGW or Cygwin.  But if I do that, then I may as well use
> MinGW for everything and not bother with LLVM.
>
> Our frontend compiler can generate C code as input to a C
> compiler (such as GCC in MinGW) and use the C compiler as a
> backend solution.  Alternatively our frontend compiler could
> be made to generate LLVM instructions as input to LLVM.  The
> problem is that LLVM is an incomplete backend solution --
> LLVM practically requires that MinGW or Cygwin be installed.
>
> But if MinGW or Cygwin is installed, then I have no need for
> LLVM !!
>
> So the point is, Windoze developers will tend to reject LLVM
> while it requires that MinGW or Cygwin be installed, because
> MinGW/Cygwin eliminate the need for LLVM.
>

I think the fundamental point of contention here is "need". You claim to
have no need of LLVM if MinGW or Cygwin are present. However, the existing
developers of LLVM have a need which superscedes the presence of MinGW,
Cygwin, GAS, Binutils, GCC, Gold, MASM, Visual Studio, or any other
toolchain element you wish to mention. What they need is not to replace
every element of the toolchain, or have a single toolchain package, but
rather to fix specific deficits in a single aspect of the toolchain: GCC's
backend. They have done so, with considerable assistance and funding,
serving numerous customers.

Sadly, these are not your customers, and their needs seem to not be the same
as your needs. However, simply because LLVM is currently targeted at a
different group of customers does not mean that it is failing to serve the
needs of *its* customers, it is infact serving them quite well. You will
have to take the steps to serve your customers however because they
(according to you) have different needs.

Keep in mind that as Owen points out, all other major compilers have the
same challenges you enumerate, they simply have had some interested party
(such as yourself) with customers who need a solution package and include
their dependencies in a nice system such as MinGW or Cygwin. Should you have
sufficient demand for *LLVM* in this context, rather than any C compiler,
you might well find it worth your time to contribute such a packaging.

-Chandler


>
> The Solution:
> Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, capable of
> generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or .DLL file,
> without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be installed first.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/a593058a/attachment.html>