Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

LLVM is a shit compiler

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 12:55

It's worse than GCC 4.5 in terms of speed, and that says A LOT

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 13:00

>>1
nipaaaaaaaaaaaaaa~~~~~~~~

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 13:20

you should've written your own when you were 12 and what is this

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 19:01

LLVM is not a compiler. HTH, HAND.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 22:31

>>4

Hanus?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 8:07

--enable-optimized
    Enables optimized compilation (debugging symbols are removed and GCC optimization flags are enabled).
    Note that this is the default setting if you are using the LLVM distribution. The default behavior of an
    Subversion checkout is to use an unoptimized build (also known as a debug build).

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 8:17

>>6
Vroom! Vroooom!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 9:21

GCC has a lot of momentum, but at some point LLVM should start gaining mind share among compiler researchers. Who really wants to work with the GCC code?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 9:38

>>6
Who gives a shit about Subversion?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 9:42

>>9
If you want to try Clang you do.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 14:36

>should start gaining mind share among compiler researchers
Just like academic languages

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 13:31

optimized code > compiler speed

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 13:44

>>12
This more than anything else.  Hell, if compilation takes so long as to be noticeable, just let it run while you're at the store or sleeping or whatever.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 14:29

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 14:32

>>14
Rob Pike wants to end those days. Fuck that guy.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 14:39

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 16:02

>>10
There are a few distros that have clang packages that aren't built from subversion, including OS X, FreeBSD, and Arch Linux.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 16:19

>>14
Fuck off, Randall.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 16:24

>>18
Is it sad that I can tell a bolded spoilered Randall from the width alone?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 17:06

>>19
Are you viewing /prague/ in monospace?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 17:27

>>20
If he were, it'd be miraculous that he could tell its font-width.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 17:39

>>20
No, but I'm not using disproportional font either.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 3:36

I've tried LLVM mingw and it doesn't compile anything:
..\llc: test.c:4:1: error: expected top-level entity
#include <stdio.h>
^

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 4:10

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 4:39

Ok, not impressed. Code 15% slower than GCC

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 4:55

They should port JavaScript to LLVM

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 5:42

>>26
They target C/C++ programmers. This is stupid, since established  native compilers which don't need a vm/bytecode can outperform them easily(unlike VM languages)

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 7:29

>>26
Already done. Except the LLVM is ported to JavaScript.
http://github.com/omo/jsllc

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 8:11

The two problems with LLVM: its in Sepples and sponsored by Apple.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 11:09

>>29
If you've seen the kind of shit that the FSF pulls in its management of GCC, you'd welcome a different organization, even Apple, backing your compiler of choice.  The FSF sabotages the modularity of GCC out of ideological devotion to the GPL.  Why does GCC have no accessible intermediate language?  Because then someone could write a closed-source frontend, backend, or optimization stage for it.  GCC is an utter piece of shit if you want to try and add support for new languages or platforms.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 11:36

Linuxare: To what extent does the basic architecture of GCC need changes to support the language front-ends, such as the new GCC Java compiler?

Richard: I don't know anything about what's happening with the Java compiler. I stopped dealing with GCC around 1992 and I don't know what changes, if any, were needed. Some changes were needed mainly in the tree data structure, which is what programs get parsed into. Occasionally, when you handle a language that has the kind of construct that hasn't been handled before, if there's no way to represent it with the existing tree data structure, you need to add something so you can represent it. Things like methods and core methods needed a way to be represented, so we added them.

Linuxcare: Does GCC still use a LISP-like intermediary language?

Richard: Printed syntax is what's LISP-like. It's not really LISP-like in the sense that it consists of tupelos that point to a number of other tupelos, which is not by any means a new format for priority use. It's printed out in a LISP-like syntax because that makes it easy to work with in EMACS.

Linuxcare: How did you come to choose LISP as the EMACS engine?

Richard: LISP is the most powerful programming language, and if you want an interpreter, LISP is the best. None of the other languages come anywhere near LISP in their power. The most exciting things about LISP are read, eval, and print. If you look at other languages, they have no equivalent for any of those.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 12:00

This thread has been beautifully segued into the following:
Name: Anonymous
Email:
Subject: Typing LISP in lowercase letters

Message: It doesn't work.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 12:09

>>32
Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 12:23

>>33
It just doesn't work.

Name: Haxus The Lexus 2010-07-27 12:31

Haxus The Lexus

Name: Haxus the Lexer 2010-07-27 17:10

Haxus the Lexer

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 13:49

>>31
tupelos

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 13:52

The most exciting things about LISP are read, eval, and print. If you look at other languages, they have no equivalent for any of those.
JavaScript: prompt, eval, alert
Perl: <>, eval, print

"no equivalent" MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 14:01

>>38
You are very wrong. Either you are trolling, or you have no idea how Lisp works.

read parses a line of input into an s-expression. It does not return a string.
eval evaluates an already-parsed s-expression. It does not operate on strings.
print outputs an s-expression. It does not process strings. (That is, (print "hello") will output "hello" with the quotation marks intact.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 14:01

>>38
has never used Lisp if he thinks those are eqv?

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List