Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Joachim Durchholz
Hi all,

I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2
is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too
dumb to find it.)

Regards,
Jo

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Andrew Lenharth
officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped.
unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for
some stuff.  But this will only last until I can use 4.2.

Andrew

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>  I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2
>  is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too
>  dumb to find it.)
>
>  Regards,
>  Jo
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  LLVM Developers mailing list
>  [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>  http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Tanya Lattner-2
In reply to this post by Joachim Durchholz

On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-
> gcc4.2
> is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too
> dumb to find it.)
>

There isn't one.

I can tell you that when I did the release testing that for most  
platforms there were no new regressions with llvm-gcc-4.2 on llvm-
test.  I didn't look at performance between the two though.

Since LLVM 2.2 we have dropped support for llvm-gcc-4.0.

-Tanya

> Regards,
> Jo
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Duncan Sands
In reply to this post by Joachim Durchholz
Hi Jo,

> I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-gcc4.2
> is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too
> dumb to find it.)

development of llvm-gcc-4.0 has stopped: only 4.2 is being worked on.
The version of 4.2 in the last LLVM release was already mostly superior
to 4.0 IMHO.

Ciao,

Duncan.
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Joachim Durchholz

Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Duncan Sands:
> development of llvm-gcc-4.0 has stopped: only 4.2 is being worked on.
> The version of 4.2 in the last LLVM release was already mostly superior
> to 4.0 IMHO.

So the recommendation would be to use 4.2 for all uses, yes?
(Bootstrapping LLVM itself, compiling C/C++ software, whatever.)

Regards,
Jo

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Evan Cheng-2
In reply to this post by Joachim Durchholz
4.2 is *complete*. Are you looking for performance #? Since llvm-gcc  
doesn't use any of gcc's optimization and codegen passes it should  
roughly the same. In fact, that's what we have been seeing. We have  
formally deprecated llvm-gcc 4.0 as far as I know.

Evan

On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-
> gcc4.2
> is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too
> dumb to find it.)
>
> Regards,
> Jo
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Joachim Durchholz
In reply to this post by Andrew Lenharth
Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 09:45 -0500 schrieb Andrew Lenharth:
> officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped.
> unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for
> some stuff.  But this will only last until I can use 4.2.

OK, that's a clear roadmap.

Maybe the docs should be updated to reflect this status? They still present 4.0 as if it were the default that one should use.

Regards,
Jo

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Bill Wendling
In reply to this post by Joachim Durchholz
On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:00 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering what the comparative status of llvm-gcc4.0 vs. llvm-
> gcc4.2
> is. Can anybody tell? (A URL would be fine, I may have been just too
> dumb to find it.)
>
Hi Joachim,

We've officially moved to llvm-gcc 4.2 and are no longer keeping llvm-
gcc 4.0 up-to-date. (Andrew keeps 4.0 compiling, but we no longer care  
about keeping it feature-compatible with 4.2.)

-bw
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Bill Wendling
In reply to this post by Joachim Durchholz
On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Duncan Sands:
>> development of llvm-gcc-4.0 has stopped: only 4.2 is being worked on.
>> The version of 4.2 in the last LLVM release was already mostly  
>> superior
>> to 4.0 IMHO.
>
> So the recommendation would be to use 4.2 for all uses, yes?
> (Bootstrapping LLVM itself, compiling C/C++ software, whatever.)
>
Yes. :-)

-bw

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Joachim Durchholz
In reply to this post by Evan Cheng-2

Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 11:43 -0700 schrieb Evan Cheng:
> 4.2 is *complete*. Are you looking for performance #?

No, I'm just trying to bootstrap llvm-gcc.

Even after that, performance will remain relatively unimportant for me
for quite a while, and even then I'll want to compete with PHP (or
Python, Ruby, Perl), and I don't think this will be a challenge.

Regards,
Jo


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Tanya Lattner-2
In reply to this post by Joachim Durchholz

On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:37 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:

> Am Samstag, den 22.03.2008, 09:45 -0500 schrieb Andrew Lenharth:
>> officially support for llvm-gcc4.0 has been dropped.
>> unofficially I still keep llvm-gcc4.0 compiling because I need it for
>> some stuff.  But this will only last until I can use 4.2.
>
> OK, that's a clear roadmap.
>

Please do not rely on llvm-gcc.40. I sent out this announcement last  
month:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-February/012416.html

> Maybe the docs should be updated to reflect this status? They still  
> present 4.0 as if it were the default that one should use.
>

2.2 docs will still have references to llvm-gcc4.0. Can you point out  
specifically which docs you are referring to? I'm pretty sure we were  
ambiguous on which one to use ;) but regardless should be updated.

-Tanya

> Regards,
> Jo
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of LLVM-GCC 4.2?

Joachim Durchholz

Am Sonntag, den 23.03.2008, 11:22 -0700 schrieb Tanya Lattner:
> 2.2 docs will still have references to llvm-gcc4.0. Can you point out  
> specifically which docs you are referring to? I'm pretty sure we were  
> ambiguous on which one to use ;) but regardless should be updated.

http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#quickstart says on item #4:
"Install the llvm-gcc4.0 (or llvm-gcc4.2) front end if you intend to
compile C or C++"
(Actually this passage should be updated with a hint why one would want
to choose one or the other compiler.)

I'm not sure about other passages, that's just he page I was working
off.

Regards,
Jo

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev