RE: [LLVMdev] Cygwin Compile Fails for me too.

Project Infrastructure LLVM Dev List Archives
1

OK I've got
GNU ld version 2.15.94 20041229
as and ar are the same version number etc. I think the latest release is 2.16.
I guess you guys like to stay on the bleeding edge!

I'll give it a try with the cfrontend included as suggested, but I'm actually writing a pattern
matching compiler for a non-C scripting language and I'm looking for an optimizing back-end such as llvm. I didn't think I needed the C front end.

In fact llvm seems to be the only active tool of it's kind in the free software world. MLRISC seems to be somewhat ML specific and C-- isn't as far along.

-Matthew

2

If you use Microsoft's VC++ compiler to build LLVM, you don't need to build the C front end (indeed, you can't even if you wanted to).

Matthew Bromberg wrote:

3

OK I've got
GNU ld version 2.15.94 20041229
as and ar are the same version number etc. I think the latest release
is 2.16.
I guess you guys like to stay on the bleeding edge!

If I recall correctly, the 2.15.94 version that comes with Cygwin is the
buggy one that doesn't assemble correctly. That's we we *reverted* back
to 2.15. I doubt anyone's tried 2.16 on cygwin with LLVM.

I'll give it a try with the cfrontend included as suggested, but I'm
actually writing a pattern
matching compiler for a non-C scripting language and I'm looking for an
optimizing back-end such as llvm. I didn't think I needed the C front end.

No, you don't. Don't specify the --with-llvmgccdir option when you
configure and when you build LLVM use "make tools-only". Everything will
be fine :slight_smile:

In fact llvm seems to be the only active tool of it's kind in the free
software world. MLRISC seems to be somewhat ML specific and C-- isn't
as far along.

Well, if that's true, I guess LLVM is the best one too :slight_smile:

Reid.

4

Strike that -- you don't need to build the C front end period, if you have no need for it. But you won't be able to run many tests.

Jeff Cohen wrote: