[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

[Bill Wendling]

On May 11, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:

>
> Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but...
>
> Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote:
>>
>>> See how gcc is invoked to generate the final executable
>>> file.  This means LLVM is an incomplete backend,
>>> unfortunately.
>>>
>> That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls
>> the assembler and linker as part of it's execution. You are perfectly
>> able to call the assembler & linker yourself.
>
> This means that LLVM requires an assembler and linker. Call it GCC or
> binutils, it is irrelevant. The OP point is that LLVM is not a
> self-sufficient tool on this aspect.
>
Then the exact same thing is true for GCC.

> Of course, if this is a serious problem for the OP, the correct way of
> dealing with it is to take constructive, polite actions for correcting
> it :-)
>
>>> Bill Wendling wrote:
>>>> I don't know about your computer, by mine comes with an
>>>> assembler.
>>>
>>> MS Windows does not come with an assembler, AFAIK.
>>>
>> You should really learn how to use Google. Got this as the top hit  
>> for
>> "Microsoft Assembler":
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7a1c9da0-0510-44a2-b042-7ef370530c64&displaylang=en
>
> This does not *comes* with MS Windows. It is a separate download,  
> which
> depends on more downloads (Visual C++ Express Edition) and is for
> non-commercial use only. Furthermore, you can't re-distribute it.
>
It's a separate download for me too. And there are other tools  
available for MS Windows which achieve the same goals. The point is  
that he was wrong.

> OTOH, I'm curious about why the OP needs to produce dlls on the
> fly. Isn't the JIT ok?
>
I doubt he knows.

-bw