Clang is a resource hog, the installers for Windows miss quite some files, and are defect!

Hi @ll,

BUGS #1 & #2:

Please ease up on the all-caps/shouting and sarcasm. It's not suitable
in this forum.

Yes, people on the project have likely heard of hard links. Perhaps
there are practical reasons they're not suitable here, or someone
hasn't had the time, etc - perhaps you could contribute
patches/support for this?

As for the x86/x64 - while clang itself is a cross compiler, yeah, I'm
not sure any of the distributions include multiple target runtime
support (though, yeah, being able to install them side-by-side, either
as modules to the same installation, or at least both full
installations separately)

Please ease up on the all-caps/shouting and sarcasm.

I'm easy: the LLVM project writes LLVM in caps, Windows' FC.exe
prints the filenames C:\PROGRAM FILES\LLVM\BIN\clang.exe and
C:\PROGRAM FILES\LLVM\BIN\CLANG-CL.EXE in caps, ...

It's not suitable in this forum.

I don't wear a suit, and this is a mailing llist!
If you are but not interested in bug reports.

Yes, people on the project have likely heard of hard links. Perhaps
there are practical reasons they're not suitable here, or someone
hasn't had the time, etc - perhaps you could contribute
patches/support for this?

I don't use LLVM.
And I especially don't use vulnerable crap like executable installers.

As for the x86/x64 - while clang itself is a cross compiler, yeah, I'm
not sure any of the distributions include multiple target runtime
support (though, yeah, being able to install them side-by-side, either
as modules to the same installation, or at least both full
installations separately)

BUG #6:

I think David is not referring to the capitalization of file names, but to “DUPLICATE”, “WASTING”, “NOT AMUSED”, “BOGUS” etc. It should be possible to report problems in a professional manner. Please remember that the project is made available by volunteers for free. We also have a dedicated bug tracker: bugs.llvm.org.

BUGS #1 & #2:

On UNIX systems, these are symlinks. 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.Typically tools ported from a UNIX environment to Windows just copy the file instead symlinking to avoid dealing with issues such as when the installing on a non-NTFS file system (FAT, network drive, etc), so does LLVM (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/cmake/modules/LLVMInstallSymlink.cmake).

Since mass storage is cheap, there isn’t a lot of motivation to save to invest time to save some space. However, you are free to invest that time yourself and submit patches.

BUG #5:


Poor souls who want to install the 64-bit package after/aside the
32-bit package (or vice versa) are greeted with the following BOGUS
message from the installers:
______________________________________________________
> Installation von LLVM
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> ^
> /!\ LLVM is already installed.
> ¯¯¯
> Do you want to install the old version before
> installing the new one?
>
> [ Ja ] [ Nein ] [ Abbrechen ]
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Also note the denglish kauderwelsch: the title bar and the buttons
are localized, but the message text isn't.

The button labels and message box title are provided by the Operating System / Nullsoft Install System. LLVM itself does not do any localization itself. I’d be more concerned that if offers to “install the old version” (rather than uninstall it).

My guess this warning is a functionality provided by the Nullsoft Install System that assumes that software only needs to be installed once on the system. I wouldn’t call it bogus, you may indeed not want to keep an older version installed at the same time.

Michael

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.

It should be possible to report problems in a professional manner.

It should also be possible to handle problem reports in a professional
manner!

Please remember that the project is made available by volunteers
for free. We also have a dedicated bug tracker: bugs.llvm.org.

You are free to enter the bugs I pointed out there.
I don't use LLVM, so don't expect me to jump throught loops to report
obvious bugs.

BUGS #1 & #2:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On UNIX systems, these are symlinks.

UNIX and Windows are quite different.

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.

Typically tools ported from a UNIX environment to Windows just copy the
file instead symlinking to avoid dealing with issues such as when the
installing on a non-NTFS file system (FAT, network drive, etc),

Do you really want to tell that the installer LLVM uses on Windows was
ported from UNIX?
REALITY CHECK, please!
The default installation goes into %ProgramFiles%\LLVM, which is located
on NTFS.

so does LLVM (

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/cmake/modules/LLVMInstallSymlink.cmake
).

Since mass storage is cheap, there isn't a lot of motivation to save to
invest time to save some space. However, you are free to invest that time
yourself and submit patches.

I'm even free not to use LLVM at all, but nevertheless see and report its
bugs and deficiencies here: be professional and fix them

BUG #5:
~~~~~~~

Poor souls who want to install the 64-bit package after/aside the
32-bit package (or vice versa) are greeted with the following BOGUS
message from the installers:
______________________________________________________
> Installation von LLVM
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> ^
> /!\ LLVM is already installed.
> ¯¯¯
> Do you want to install the old version before
> installing the new one?
>
> [ Ja ] [ Nein ] [ Abbrechen ]
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Also note the denglish kauderwelsch: the title bar and the buttons
are localized, but the message text isn't.

The button labels and message box title are provided by the Operating
System / Nullsoft Install System.

To use this obviously defective "install system" is then a rather poor
choice.

LLVM itself does not do any localization itself.
I'd be more concerned that if offers to "install the old version"
(rather than uninstall it).

This seems to be a typo.
I'd rather be concerned about the OLD version here, which might be
ANY other version, older, newer, or the same, but just for the other
processor architecture of the target OS!

Do you consider such misleading messages appropriate for a product
developed by professionals?

My guess this warning is a functionality provided by the Nullsoft Install
System that assumes that software only needs to be installed once on the
system. I wouldn't call it bogus, you may indeed not want to keep an older
version installed at the same time.

Most obviously this "install system" was the wrong choice for LLVM.

BUG #8:

Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev <llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org> writes:

Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev <llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org> writes:

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

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. 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.

Philip

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

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!

Please take that step back that Philip requested. We do appreciate the bug reports,
but not the delivery.

Thanks and have a good weekend.

-eric

[...]

Please take that step back that Philip requested.

Please take that step back that I requested (also on behalf
of at least one of your prospect customers/users).

We do appreciate the bug reports, but not the delivery.

We do appreciate your work, but not its (current) delivery!

Thanks and have a good weekend.

Thanks too!

Stefan

Stefan,

I hope this email finds you well.

I noticed that you said earlier you don't wear a suit and I was
wondering why not? Personally I'm not a fan of suits either, but I was
curious about your experience. Do you find them uncomfortable? Does it
make you feel too disconnected from your fellow humans, who are not
always wearing suits?

I also noticed that you said you don't use LLVM. I think you will be
pleased to know that nobody on this mailing list uses LLVM! So don't
worry you are not alone.

What is your favorite color? Do you like music?

That's all for now.

Yours truly,
Andrew

Rule of thumb #1: eat your own dogfood!
Rule of thumb #2: on the 'net, nobody knows you're a dog!

Stefan

Ever heard of voluntary projects? The Windows installer is provided
best-effort by some people to reduce the barrier of entrace for Windows
users. It is certainly not paid work. Your patronizing tone is not going
to make anyone work on improving things. You don't provide any fixes
either. At best, your mails are going to get ignored by those interested
in the installer, if don't just come to taking the conclusion that the
effort is not appreciated and going to remove them in first place.

I would really suggest you to take a class on how to provide positive
feedback. Otherwise, I would kindly request that you just leave behind
this community and don't come back. The interactions with your mails
have so far been far more harmful than any value they provided.

Please don't bother with a reply.

Not amused,
Joerg

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

I find this acceptable.