[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

[kr512]

I wrote:
> The Solution: Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, 
> capable of generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or 
> .DLL file, without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be 
> installed first.

Michael T. Richter replied:
> You will be welcomed with open arms by the LLVM community 
> when you write this.  I look forward to your announcement 
> with bated breath.

I will do what I can.

> Your demands are not ... exactly being professional.

I was not making any demands.  I said:  "It would be 
wonderful if support for the 3 container formats could be 
finished/implemented."

No-one in their right mind would claim that "It would be 
wonderful if..." constitutes a demand.

> There's two phrases from various sides of pop culture 
> which could apply to you right now:
>   * Show me the code!
>   * Show me the money!
> Without one or the other of the above, you are 
> contributing nothing but noise and smoke to this project.

I have been here only 3 days.  How on earth can you 
reasonably expect me to contribute code within my first 3 
days?

As for contributing money to speed the development of the 
necessary features, that is a possibility at some point, but 
obviously I must first have discussions on this mailing list 
and get to know the developers, in order to determine who 
should receive the money to do the work.

In order to ensure that the money goes to a sensible and 
professional software developer, and not accidentally to 
some immature insecure idiot.

> 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.

That statement makes no sense.  You have no idea what 
spheres of human endeavour I have participated in.  You 
don't know me.  You have no knowledge of my history.

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

It doesn't compile successfully in MSVS.

> So put up or shut up.

That is a very unprofessional thing to say.

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

I have been here only 3 days.  How can you expect me to 
contribute so fast?

> 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?

My point was that LLVM alone by itself is incapable of 
producing a ready-to-execute .EXE or .DLL, and this fact is 
indisputable and agreed by all.

>> Also, "gas" is not available on Windoze.
> http://tinyurl.com/64vnua

Ah you've sent me to a Bart Simpson page.  My 2 young kids 
watch the Simpsons.  I don't.

> 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?

It is true that I can use the assembler and linker in MinGW, 
but if I do that, then I may as well just simply use MinGW 
to do everything, and not bother with LLVM.  MinGW by itself 
is capable of doing everything I need.  LLVM by itself is 
not.  LLVM would be great if the missing pieces were 
implemented.

I will now ignore all further messages from you, because 
clearly you and Bill are trolling, and if I feed the trolls, 
I risk annoying the sensible people here, and I don't want 
that.

I am surprised that unprofessional behavior is tolerated 
here.  If I was in charge, I would kick off anyone who 
repeatedly acts unprofessionally, because tolerating them 
tends to cause the community to degrade more and more over 
time as professionals are driven away.  Professionals become 
less and less intereted in participating because they get 
sick of rubbing shoulders with 
unprofessional/insecure/immature people.