Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] LLVM plug-in NPE

I think we share the same vision. For managed build, just extend GCC and remove/add the differences if needed. Also need basic auto-detection of the toolchain (just check PATH?). So I'm thinking of progressively removing stuff from the plugin to get there and see if there's anything valuable to keep in the process.


From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:21:04 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] LLVM plug-in NPE
It was also added at a time when C++ on LLVM was young. Right now, clang is clearly the winner (over weird combinations with gcc). Also interesting is that clang is pretty much 100% compatible with gcc. For example, I simply added clang and clang++ as possible command names for the GCCToolChain in the new build system and it just works, including scanner discovery of built-ins.

So I’m not sure whether we really need LLVM support in CDT at all other than extend the exiting gcc tool definitions to handle clang as well.


From: <cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:12 AM
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] LLVM plug-in NPE

The LLVM support was added as experimental and labelled as such when the user installs is.

The goal was to get this preliminary support in the hands of the community and stimulate

some interest to improve it.  It seems this is starting to happen :-)

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Liviu Ionescu <ilg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: February 14, 2017 9:44
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] LLVM plug-in NPE

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 15:21, Jesper Eskilson <Jesper.Eskilson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I had an ambition to get give the LLVM-support some attention, but haven't been able to spend any significant time on it.

any contribution is welcomed, I cannot comment on how much time any developer affords to spend on contributions, but LLVM support definitely deserves more attention.

as it is now, I consider it experimental, or even less, and I wonder how it got its way into the distribution.

if more progress is made, I can help with some testing on macOS.



cdt-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Mailing list: cdt-dev CDT General developers list. About cdt-dev

Back to the top