[llvm-dev] Clang is a resource hog, the installers for Windows miss quite some files, and are defect!

[Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev]

"David Greene" <dag at hpe.com> wrote:

> Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> 
>> "Michael Kruse" <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I think David is not referring to the capitalization of file names, but to
>>> "DUPLICATE", "WASTING", "NOT AMUSED", "BOGUS" etc.
>>
>> I EMPHASIZE in the only way possible with plain text.
> 
> There are *many* ways to _emphasize_ text without shouting.
>                                          ~~~~~~~

How ugly; I prefer UPPER CASE!

>>> It should be possible to report problems in a professional manner.
>>
>> It should also be possible to handle problem reports in a professional
>> manner!
> 
> From everything I have read, both Michael and David were very
> professional in their responses.

Both had nothing better to do than to mock about my way of emphasizing!
That's childish and completely unprofessional.

[...]

>> I don't use LLVM, so don't expect me to jump throught loops to report
>> obvious bugs.
> 
> I guess I don't understand your concern then.  If you don't use LLVM,
> why are you installing it and why do you care about its size?

Who said I installed it?
Some poor soul installed it because he got the advice to use LLVM/clang
because "it is better than MinGW or MSVC/Visual Studio".
After that he wondered why he can compile for i386, but can't link the
compiled objects ... so he asked me.
I VOLUNTARILY took my time to see what was installed, and how it was
installed: I noticed the wasted 0.5GB and the missing clang-rt.*-i386.lib
He was DEFINITELY not amused, and called the $*%@ who built this crap
names.

I but dared to copy clang-rt.builtins-{i386,x86-64}.lib and verified the
still POOR performance, especially for 64-bit division on i386 and 128-bit
division on AMD64.

JFTR: __udivmoddi4 and __udivmodti4 are even slower than in LLVM 7.0.0!

[...]

>>> There are multiple potential equivalents to symlinks on Windows systems,
>>> the one matching UNIX systems the closest is relatively new and requires
>>> either Administrator rights or developer mode turned on.
>>
>> Hardlinks don't. And they are available on both systems.
> 
> They aren't available on FAT32 filesystems though.

The DEFAULT installation directory is on NTFS.

JFTR: since Windows Vista, introduced 14 years ago, the boot partition
      must be NTFS.

Stefan