LLVM as a DLL

Tanya Lattner wrote:

Your "point" has been made (regardless if the point has changed over time).

My point did not change, rather I just used the wrong name in my original message, or I stated my point in a manner less specific than people here would have preferred.

You feel the need to keep repeating that LLVM is not a COMPLETE backend.

A number of people did not understand my original message so it was necessary to provide more information. Also, some people asked me questions. You don't expect me to ignore their questions, do you? Jon Harrop, for example, asked an important question that I needed to reply to.

Fine, thats your opinion based upon your definition of a complete backend.

It is an indisputable and agreed FACT that LLVM alone by itself is incapable of generating a ready-to-execute .EXE or .DLL file.

Point made. Please move on.

Oh come on, it is not like I have been harping about this for weeks. My first message to this mailing list was only *3* days ago! And the total number of messages I have ever sent to this mailing list is what, 4 or 5 messages? Whereas I am sure there are people here who have posted hundreds of messages.

If LLVM does not compile with MSVS 2008, then please provide patches. We currently do not have many people developing on Windows, so unless someone steps up and helps, it will never get better.

I will do what I can.

LLVM is an open source project. You can not expect people who work on it in their free time to magically do all the work that you require to make your customers happy. You have to do your part too.

I already started doing my part. The first step in doing my part is discussing the issues with the people here, and trying to understand their points, and trying to help them understand my points.

To just blindly jump in and start writing code for LLVM without having a discussion/debate here first, that would be crazy. And it has only been *3* days since I joined this mailing list -- can't you give me a few more days to learn this environment before expecting contributions from me?

And can't you give other people on this mailing list, busy people who may not be able to respond immediately, a few more days to read and reply to my message, so they can add their valuable insight to the discussion?

I was not expecting people to do free work for me, rather I was merely providing feedback that I hope will be useful/helpful to people here, for the purpose of making LLVM better and more successful.

Also, this is not about making my customers happy. I only mentioned them as an example because it makes it easier to understand the issue from a real-world perspective. Also, the improvements to LLVM that I propose would make LLVM much more attractive to MANY people not only my customers.

*Feeds the troll*

You feel the need to keep repeating that LLVM is not a
COMPLETE backend.

A number of people did not understand my original message so
it was necessary to provide more information. Also, some
people asked me questions. You don't expect me to ignore
their questions, do you?

Oh! Good one. Passive-aggressively put the blame on someone else for your repetitious nonsense.

Jon Harrop, for example, asked an
important question that I needed to reply to.

Fine, thats your opinion based upon your definition of a
complete backend.

It is an indisputable and agreed FACT that LLVM alone by
itself is incapable of generating a ready-to-execute .EXE or
.DLL file.

The same is true for GCC, which you held up as a "compete" backend in your original post.

Point made. Please move on.

Oh come on, it is not like I have been harping about this
for weeks. My first message to this mailing list was only
*3* days ago! And the total number of messages I have ever
sent to this mailing list is what, 4 or 5 messages? Whereas
I am sure there are people here who have posted hundreds of
messages.

Those "hundreds of messages" (not in this thread) have had actual useful content.

LLVM is an open source project. You can not expect people
who work on it in their free time to magically do all the
work that you require to make your customers happy. You
have to do your part too.

I already started doing my part. The first step in doing my
part is discussing the issues with the people here, and
trying to understand their points, and trying to help them
understand my points.

"Trolling" != "Discussing the issues"

To just blindly jump in and start writing code for LLVM
without having a discussion/debate here first, that would be
crazy. And it has only been *3* days since I joined this
mailing list -- can't you give me a few more days to learn
this environment before expecting contributions from me?

Are you that new to the Internet?!

Typically, people start out by AT LEAST TRYING TO COMPILE LLVM instead of jumping right in with some perceived problem. If you had actually COMPILED LLVM ONCE in one of the suggested ways, you will find that all of the libraries you want are GENERATED FOR YOU!

And can't you give other people on this mailing list, busy
people who may not be able to respond immediately, a few
more days to read and reply to my message, so they can add
their valuable insight to the discussion?

Nothing is stopping them.

I was not expecting people to do free work for me, rather I
was merely providing feedback that I hope will be
useful/helpful to people here, for the purpose of making
LLVM better and more successful.

Providing feedback from a position of ignorance is never useful.

-bw