[LLVMdev] Compiler Driver Decisions

[Chris Lattner]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Misha Brukman wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:23:06PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc
> > > >
> > > > Why not 'llvmc' "llvm compiler"?  What does the extra C mean?
> > >
> > > I dunno. Perhaps cause Misha liked it. But, you do have a point there.
>
> LLVMCC = LLVM Compiler Collection, a la GCC
> After all, it's going to be the "driver", like GCC, and unify
> front-ends, so I should be able to do:
>
> % llvmcc a.java -o a.o
> % llvmcc b.cpp -o b.o
>
> Right?

Absolutely.  The problem is that "C compiler" is what people think of when
they see CC.  This we certainly are not.  If we are really a compiler of
code, why not just call it llvmc?  Also, just because GCC set a precedent
here does not mean that it needs to be followed.  Their renaming to
compiler collection is largely due to historical reasons.

> > It's already the name of the project and the IR... this causes enough
> > confusion as it is.  What trouble could one extra little 'c' cause? :)
>
> I think some terminology clarification would be in order... :)

I'm just advocating not making the situation worse :)

-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
http://nondot.org/sabre/