[Info-vax] LLVM, was: Re: And another one bites the dust....

[Dan Cross]

In article <sv0onu$66b$1 at dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley  <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2022-02-18, Dan Cross <cross at spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>> Undoubtedly, but I wasn't suggesting that it was.
>> My comment was motivated by an apparent statement
>> that LLVM == x86.  It does not.
>>
>
>There is one way in which LLVM is effectively x86 however and
>that is the sheer horsepower and RAM needed to build the damn
>thing from source. :-(

It is definitely large.  That said, I've built it on ARM
and RISC-V (actual silicon, yes), and it's not _that_ bad.

>I'm also less than impressed in how they keep updating the toolchain
>source code with the very latest C++ standards so you need the latest
>C++ compilers to build it. (In fairness, that knowledge is from several
>versions back, so I don't know if they have matured somewhat recently
>and stopped chasing the "nice new shiny" at every opportunity.)
>
>This is exactly the kind of thing that should be easy to build reasonably
>quickly with any reasonable C++ compiler. :-(
>
>I wish there were a more lightweight compiler toolchain that targeted
>the same range of backends that LLVM does and for which it was also
>easy to plug in your own frontend...

You mean like GEM?  :-D

	- Dan C.