[llvm-dev] Clang is a resource hog, the installers for Windows miss quite some files, and are defect!

[Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev]

"Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:

> Stefan,
> 
> I can't tell if you're intentionally trolling, or are simply oblivious, 
> but to this observer you have clearly crossed well over the line of 
> acceptable behavior.

Since you seem to have some experience in taking the point of view of a
third person: do you find LLVM's "behaviour" of wasting its customers
resources (nearly 0.5GB of the total 1.5GB for every installed package
on Windows) acceptable?
Or that your customers have to install separate FULL packages for every
target architecture instead of just the few runtime libraries?

> Please take a step back, walk away from a couple of days, and if you
> want to reengage with a calmer perspective at that time, then do so.

Take a step back and change your point of view until you get the right
perspective, then fix the couple of bugs I presented!

Stefan

> On 8/21/20 10:41 AM, Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev wrote:
>> "David Greene" <dag at hpe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Michael Kruse" <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think David is not referring to the capitalization of file names, but to
>>>>> "DUPLICATE", "WASTING", "NOT AMUSED", "BOGUS" etc.
>>>> I EMPHASIZE in the only way possible with plain text.
>>> There are *many* ways to _emphasize_ text without shouting.
>>>                                           ~~~~~~~
>> How ugly; I prefer UPPER CASE!
>>
>>>>> It should be possible to report problems in a professional manner.
>>>> It should also be possible to handle problem reports in a professional
>>>> manner!
>>>  From everything I have read, both Michael and David were very
>>> professional in their responses.
>> Both had nothing better to do than to mock about my way of emphasizing!
>> That's childish and completely unprofessional.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I don't use LLVM, so don't expect me to jump throught loops to report
>>>> obvious bugs.
>>> I guess I don't understand your concern then.  If you don't use LLVM,
>>> why are you installing it and why do you care about its size?
>> Who said I installed it?
>> Some poor soul installed it because he got the advice to use LLVM/clang
>> because "it is better than MinGW or MSVC/Visual Studio".
>> After that he wondered why he can compile for i386, but can't link the
>> compiled objects ... so he asked me.
>> I VOLUNTARILY took my time to see what was installed, and how it was
>> installed: I noticed the wasted 0.5GB and the missing clang-rt.*-i386.lib
>> He was DEFINITELY not amused, and called the $*%@ who built this crap
>> names.
>>
>> I but dared to copy clang-rt.builtins-{i386,x86-64}.lib and verified the
>> still POOR performance, especially for 64-bit division on i386 and 128-bit
>> division on AMD64.
>>
>> JFTR: __udivmoddi4 and __udivmodti4 are even slower than in LLVM 7.0.0!
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> There are multiple potential equivalents to symlinks on Windows systems,
>>>>> the one matching UNIX systems the closest is relatively new and requires
>>>>> either Administrator rights or developer mode turned on.
>>>> Hardlinks don't. And they are available on both systems.
>>> They aren't available on FAT32 filesystems though.
>> The DEFAULT installation directory is on NTFS.
>>
>> JFTR: since Windows Vista, introduced 14 years ago, the boot partition
>>        must be NTFS.
>>
>> Stefan
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev