[LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL

[Michael T. Richter]

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote:

> Michael T. Richter wrote:
> > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your 
> > attention.  They're sneaky that way because, you know, 
> > they just form the bulk of available documentation.



> I began my original message saying that I was providing 
> "constructive criticism".  That means I want to HELP if I 
> can.  Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional.



When you pay me you can harp on my "professionalism".   Until then you
can <Mr. Garrison>go to Hell and die</Mr. Garrison>.  I am at best a
hobbyist with LLVM at this point, using it for my own entertainment and
edification.  (You could stand to do a bit of that latter part,
incidentally, given the sheer, rampant incompetence and ignorance you've
shown so far in EVERY sphere of human endeavour you've participated in.)


> > The command-line tools are convenience wrappers around the 
> > APIs, not the other way around.



> Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, 
> unfortunately.


So compile it and make it so!  Jesus!  Is this so difficult to get
through your head?


> > I'm sure the LLVM lead (Chris, was it?) will gratefully 
> > accept any such functioning, tested code you can supply 
> > that generates the native object format you prefer.  This 
> > is, after all, how open source projects work for the most 
> > part.



> Your arrogant attitude is surprising considering that you 
> are not even sure who the LLVM lead(s) is.


My attitude matches my conversational partner.  I'm a social mirror that
way.


> Would love to contribute code to LLVM but circumstances do 
> not permit it at the present time, maybe later.



So put up or shut up.  And since you just said you're not able to put
up....


> > So... here's a thought.  Why don't you do that one-time 
> > work and host the compiled package up on a web page 
> > somewhere as a service to this open source community that 
> > will so eagerly embrace it?



> LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft 
> Visual Studio 2008.


So why don't you do that one-time work and host the ...  Is there an
echo here?


> >> GCC needs to be cut out of the back-end picture.
> [...]
> > So... your world doesn't include "gas" or "nasm" or any 
> > other such assembler?  You know.  The "gas" that GCC 
> > itself uses to assemble the .S files?



> Then "gas" (GNU Assembler) needs to be cut out of the 
> back-end picture of LLVM.  If "gas" is required, then LLVM 
> is an incomplete back-end solution.  


Just like the GCC you were holding up as an example of a complete
back-end solution.  Logic not a strong point in your part of the world?


> Also, "gas" is not 
> available on Windoze.  


http://tinyurl.com/64vnua


> As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that 
> cannot be executed.  To translate the object files into 
> executable programs, a separate linker program must be used, 
> and such a linker program is not normally 
> available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze. 
> See my other thread.


And see where the other people in the other thread tell you to just
redistribute the assembler and linker as part of your god-damned
project!  Are you really this thick?

-- 
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter at gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter at gmail.com)
Never, ever, ever let systems-level engineers do human interaction
design unless they have displayed a proven secondary talent in that
area. Their opinion of what represents good human-computer interaction
tends to be a bit off-track. (Bruce Tognazzini)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/8d918bba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080513/8d918bba/attachment.sig>