Jud Craft wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But this is about C++.
I don't mean to misunderstand, but if I recall from your very first
post in this thread...
Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the
native ones.
Hence I
Eric Springer wrote:
As for C++, I couldn't get some of my programs to compile as it seemed
to spew at some of the template usage. Anyway it looks very promising
and I look forward to using it in the future (especially with its
non-nonsense licensing).
So you don't consider it nonsense to
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:26:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Eric Springer wrote:
As for C++, I couldn't get some of my programs to compile as it seemed
to spew at some of the template usage. Anyway it looks very promising
and I look forward to using it in the future (especially with its
On 10/28/2009 06:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jud Craft wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But this is about C++.
I don't mean to misunderstand, but if I recall from your very first
post in this thread...
Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code
Le 26/10/2009 23:30, Jud Craft a écrit :
Hence I thought you were talking about ABI issues with C.
I'm not up on how LLVM frontend integration works, so I actually don't
understand the distinction between the LLVM C Backend and the
native LLVM backends.
Simply, can I write and compile a
On 10/26/2009 07:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 21:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
this release
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
Has anyone been looking into
On 10/26/2009 08:15 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 07:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 21:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the
performance impact is?
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:15 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 07:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 21:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I meant performance, primarily
On 10/26/2009 10:51 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:15 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 07:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 21:05 +0530, Rahul
On 10/26/2009 08:21 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Which affects who? koji certainly seems to be keeping up with the load.
What I'm trying to pry out of you is what you'd be hoping to accomplish
by using it. The answer so far seems to be I'd spend less time
building things, at the cost of some
On 10/26/2009 10:51 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:21 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Which affects who? koji certainly seems to be keeping up with the load.
What I'm trying to pry out of you is what you'd be hoping to accomplish
by using it. The answer so far seems to be I'd spend
On 10/26/2009 08:39 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
This is just myopia, though. In isolation, yes, faster builds are nice. But
if the faster builds result in poorer quality, then no, they're not a benefit.
Sure. Nobody claimed otherwise.
We don't know the cost unless we try. Doing a scratch build
On 10/26/2009 10:45 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 07:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 21:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the
performance impact is?
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:21 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Which affects who? koji certainly seems to be keeping up with the load.
What I'm trying to pry out of you is what you'd be hoping to accomplish
by using it. The answer so far seems to
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:21:09PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:21 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Which affects who? koji certainly seems to be keeping up with the load.
What I'm trying to pry out of you is what you'd be hoping to accomplish
by using it. The answer so far seems
On 10/26/2009 08:45 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not say never try at all. I
said that spending less time building things is only an obvious benefit
if we don't lose real functionality, and don't waste time placating the
compiler to get things to build.
On 10/26/2009 11:07 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:39 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
This is just myopia, though. In isolation, yes, faster builds are nice. But
if the faster builds result in poorer quality, then no, they're not a benefit.
Sure. Nobody claimed otherwise.
We don't
On 10/26/2009 11:22 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:45 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not say never try at all. I
said that spending less time building things is only an obvious benefit
if we don't lose real functionality, and don't waste time
On 10/26/2009 09:07 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
Well, why not?
I am not curious enough to volunteer to do anything with it myself but
would be interested in hearing about the experiences of anyone who has
already done so. If you haven't, feel free to ignore my mail. Pretty
simple, really.
Rahul
--
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
Well, that plus your already voiced complaint about its dwarf generation,
which is to say that any fairly immediate adoption would also make normal
development and debugging more painful.
It is not just about horrible dwarf
Jud Craft wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain
GCC-C?
It's the ABI of:
llvm-g++ → LLVM → LLVM C backend → gcc
or:
Clang (C++) → LLVM → LLVM C backend → gcc
which is incompatible with the ABI of plain g++.
AFAICT, the native LLVM backends don't have
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
It is not just about horrible dwarf generation, the performance of LLVM
generated code is worse than GCC, you can forget about all the
security enhancements GCC has added in the last 10 years (say
__builtin_object_size is parsed by clang/llvm, but always says it doesn't
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
AFAICT, the native LLVM backends don't have that problem. The real problem
with C++ is that Clang's C++ support is experimental and incomplete, so
you're stuck with llvm-g++.
I thought that C doesn't have any crazy name or symbol or
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:36 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
I was asking if anybody has already tried that. Don't understand the
argument against it yet.
If you had tried a project like this in the past, you would
understand the reasons against it.
If you do not understand those reasons
Hi
LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
this release
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the
performance impact is?
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
this release
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the
performance impact is?
A lot of
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.atwrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
this release
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
Has anyone been looking
On 10/25/2009 10:51 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
this release
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how
King InuYasha wrote:
Also, clang's support with C++ ABI is still very broken. It's listed under
known issues.
Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the
native ones.
The real problem is that C++ support in Clang is just not complete. You may
have more luck with
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the
native ones.
I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain GCC-C?
I thought that C doesn't have any crazy name or
I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain GCC-C?
See /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 and its symbols, such as stack unwinding, uncommon or
messy
conversions between data formats, expensive operations on 'long long', etc.
--
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
31 matches
Mail list logo
