[llvm-dev] lld: ELF/COFF main() interface

[Hal Finkel via llvm-dev]

----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "Eric Christopher via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: "Rafael Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>, "Chandler
> Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Arseny Kapoulkine"
> <arseny.kapoulkine at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 5:42:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] lld: ELF/COFF main() interface

> Rafael,

> This is an unreasonable and unacceptable escalation of this thread.
> You have been dismissive, derailing, and taking out of context
> everything Chandler, and other long term active contributors have
> been asking and talking about. Your tone has been inflammatory and
> unhelpful in what is both a technical discussion and project
> discussion.

> Irrespective of anything else I believe you owe Chandler an apology.

> To further Chandler's arguments as far as the project is concerned,
> please do keep in mind that: a) llvm is designed around being a
> reusable set of libraries, b) Chandler is articulating in a very
> effective way what many of us on the project see as the direction
> for lld. I, and others, have not seen it as helpful to merely reply
> to all of his posts with a "+1" as that's just adding additional
> noise - and we all get enough email.

Eric, thanks so much for writing this. I do believe this captures how many of us feel.

 -Hal


> -eric

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:44 PM Rafael Espíndola <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote:

> > Also, one of the other possible motivations of using LLD directly
> > from Clang would be to avoid process overhead on operating systems
> > where that is a much more significant part of the compile time
> > cost. We could today actually take the fork out of the Clang
> > driver because the Clang frontend *is* designed in this way. But
> > we would also need LLD to work in this way.

> Then go change clang and send a patch for lld once you are done. It
> will be interested to see if you can measure a single fork in an
> entire build.

> Even better, please finish the new pass manager before working on
> clang forking cc1.

> In any case, I have simply wasted too much time on a thread with
> someone with no patches on the new elf linker. It is really annoying
> that you don't put effort into it and seem entitled to dictate its
> direction.

> If you want to kick us out of the llvm project, please start a thread
> on llvm-dev.

> If you want lld to be a library, figure out how to do it without
> sacrificing lld's productivity, error reporting and performance (no
> error_code spaghetti) and write a patch. Just don't expect it to be
> reviewed while we have actual missing features.

> I will go back to implementing the linker.

> Rafael _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

> --
Hal Finkel 
Assistant Computational Scientist 
Leadership Computing Facility 
Argonne National Laboratory 
-- 
Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory