[LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL - ENOUGH

[Tanya M. Lattner]

OK, this thread is getting nasty. If you continue in this manner, I will 
have to start banning people from the list. The LLVM mailing list is not a 
place for insults.

Please, let this thread die.

-Tanya


On Tue, 13 May 2008, Michael T. Richter wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote:
>
>> Michael T. Richter wrote:
>>> Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your
>>> attention.  They're sneaky that way because, you know,
>>> they just form the bulk of available documentation.
>
>
>
>> I began my original message saying that I was providing
>> "constructive criticism".  That means I want to HELP if I
>> can.  Your sarcastic attitude is unprofessional.
>
>
>
> When you pay me you can harp on my "professionalism".   Until then you
> can <Mr. Garrison>go to Hell and die</Mr. Garrison>.  I am at best a
> hobbyist with LLVM at this point, using it for my own entertainment and
> edification.  (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.)
>
>
>>> The command-line tools are convenience wrappers around the
>>> APIs, not the other way around.
>
>
>
>> Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL,
>> unfortunately.
>
>
> So compile it and make it so!  Jesus!  Is this so difficult to get
> through your head?
>
>
>>> I'm sure the LLVM lead (Chris, was it?) will gratefully
>>> accept any such functioning, tested code you can supply
>>> that generates the native object format you prefer.  This
>>> is, after all, how open source projects work for the most
>>> part.
>
>
>
>> Your arrogant attitude is surprising considering that you
>> are not even sure who the LLVM lead(s) is.
>
>
> My attitude matches my conversational partner.  I'm a social mirror that
> way.
>
>
>> Would love to contribute code to LLVM but circumstances do
>> not permit it at the present time, maybe later.
>
>
>
> So put up or shut up.  And since you just said you're not able to put
> up....
>
>
>>> So... here's a thought.  Why don't you do that one-time
>>> work and host the compiled package up on a web page
>>> somewhere as a service to this open source community that
>>> will so eagerly embrace it?
>
>
>
>> LLVM currently fails to compile successfully in Microsoft
>> Visual Studio 2008.
>
>
> So why don't you do that one-time work and host the ...  Is there an
> echo here?
>
>
>>>> GCC needs to be cut out of the back-end picture.
>> [...]
>>> So... your world doesn't include "gas" or "nasm" or any
>>> other such assembler?  You know.  The "gas" that GCC
>>> itself uses to assemble the .S files?
>
>
>
>> Then "gas" (GNU Assembler) needs to be cut out of the
>> back-end picture of LLVM.  If "gas" is required, then LLVM
>> is an incomplete back-end solution.
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>> Also, "gas" is not
>> available on Windoze.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/64vnua
>
>
>> As for NASM, NASM outputs unfinished object files that
>> cannot be executed.  To translate the object files into
>> executable programs, a separate linker program must be used,
>> and such a linker program is not normally
>> available/installed on customer's computers running Windoze.
>> See my other thread.
>
>
> 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?
>
>