[llvm-dev] Automake Assembler Assumptions with LLVM-MC

James Grosbach via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 19 15:48:53 PDT 2016

Sorry for missing any context. It appears the thread is forked somewhere.

> On May 19, 2016, at 6:33 AM, John Reagan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:10:50PM +0000, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev wrote:
>> It's my understanding that llvm-mc is intended to be a testing tool
>> for LLVM developers rather than an assembler for end users.

This is true.

>> Users
>> should be assembling with clang.

This is mostly true, as it’s atypical to be using LLVM for an assembler and not using clang as a C/C++ front end. It’s not, however, supposed to be a requirement to use clang.

Creating an as(1) style user-facing driver to package up the assembler independently of clang is a totally reasonable thing to do. That should, however, be a separate tool from llvm-mc.

> Not all LLVM users are clang users.  For example, we're using LLVM to build
> OpenVMS cross-compilers to x86 for our porting effort.  We have our own set
> of frontends.  We're using llvm-mc as our assembler for the lower level OS
> code. 
> We'll eventually port clang as well to bootstrap going forward, but OpenVMS
> doesn't have the same kind of driver-style so even there, I can't just the
> 'clang' command to control assembly.
> As for bug-for-bug compatibility in any sort of software, that's a tough choice.
> Traditionally, I've resisted such pressure but sooner or later, I've had to give
> in now and then.  As for the command line option matching, that is an area I
> wouldn't attempt to match since such options vary greatly across platforms.
> John
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list