Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

I wrote:

The Solution: Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, capable of generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or .DLL file, without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be installed first.

Michael T. Richter replied:

You will be welcomed with open arms by the LLVM community when you write this. I look forward to your announcement with bated breath.

I will do what I can.

Your demands are not ... exactly being professional.

I was not making any demands. I said: "It would be wonderful if support for the 3 container formats could be finished/implemented."

No-one in their right mind would claim that "It would be wonderful if..." constitutes a demand.

There's two phrases from various sides of pop culture which could apply to you right now:
  * Show me the code!
  * Show me the money!
Without one or the other of the above, you are contributing nothing but noise and smoke to this project.

I have been here only 3 days. How on earth can you reasonably expect me to contribute code within my first 3 days?

As for contributing money to speed the development of the necessary features, that is a possibility at some point, but obviously I must first have discussions on this mailing list and get to know the developers, in order to determine who should receive the money to do the work.

In order to ensure that the money goes to a sensible and professional software developer, and not accidentally to some immature insecure idiot.

You could stand to do a bit of that latter part, incidentally, given the sheer, rampant incompetence and ignorance you've shown so far in EVERY sphere of human endeavour you've participated in.

That statement makes no sense. You have no idea what spheres of human endeavour I have participated in. You don't know me. You have no knowledge of my history.

So compile it and make it so! Jesus! Is this so difficult to get through your head?

It doesn't compile successfully in MSVS.

So put up or shut up.

That is a very unprofessional thing to say.

So why don't you do that one-time work and host the ... Is there an echo here?

I have been here only 3 days. How can you expect me to contribute so fast?

Just like the GCC you were holding up as an example of a complete back-end solution. Logic not a strong point in your part of the world?

My point was that LLVM alone by itself is incapable of producing a ready-to-execute .EXE or .DLL, and this fact is indisputable and agreed by all.

Also, "gas" is not available on Windoze.

http://tinyurl.com/64vnua

Ah you've sent me to a Bart Simpson page. My 2 young kids watch the Simpsons. I don't.

And see where the other people in the other thread tell you to just redistribute the assembler and linker as part of your god-damned project! Are you really this thick?

It is true that I can use the assembler and linker in MinGW, but if I do that, then I may as well just simply use MinGW to do everything, and not bother with LLVM. MinGW by itself is capable of doing everything I need. LLVM by itself is not. LLVM would be great if the missing pieces were implemented.

I will now ignore all further messages from you, because clearly you and Bill are trolling, and if I feed the trolls, I risk annoying the sensible people here, and I don't want that.

I am surprised that unprofessional behavior is tolerated here. If I was in charge, I would kick off anyone who repeatedly acts unprofessionally, because tolerating them tends to cause the community to degrade more and more over time as professionals are driven away. Professionals become less and less intereted in participating because they get sick of rubbing shoulders with unprofessional/insecure/immature people.

>> Also, "gas" is not available on Windoze.
> [http://tinyurl.com/64vnua](http://tinyurl.com/64vnua)


Ah you've sent me to a Bart Simpson page.  My 2 young kids 
watch the Simpsons.  I don't.

Check again. This time a) read the contents of that page and b) wait 15 seconds. Then look at the first hit. On that first hit you’ll find a HUGE clue about gas and Windows.

It is true that I can use the assembler and linker in MinGW, 
but if I do that, then I may as well just simply use MinGW 
to do everything, and not bother with LLVM.  MinGW by itself 
is capable of doing everything I need.  LLVM by itself is 
not.  LLVM would be great if the missing pieces were 
implemented.

Or you could, you know, just download the binutils part of MinGW (I leave finding this as an exercise for the student, but also leave the hint that it’s a very simple exercise), copy “as.exe” and “ld.exe” and distribute those. A quick check with strings and grep gives me this:

$ strings as.exe | grep -i dll
$dlL
fildll
DllCharacteristics %08x
vma: Hint Time Forward DLL First
DLL Name: %s
KERNEL32.dll
msvcrt.dll
msvcrt.dll

I think they’re standalone. Of course you could just try instead of asserting loudly, couldn’t you? Or is that not done in the “real world” you keep spouting off about?