Clang and LLVM

Discussion:

Clang and LLVM

(too old to reply)

tim_c

2014-09-12 01:11:05 UTC

There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.

News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.

Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?

Marty Stanquist

2014-09-13 13:42:35 UTC

Permalink

"tim_c" wrote in message news:luth7m$k3o$***@www.openwatcom.org...

There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.

News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.

Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?

Clang is now the default compiler on Minix and FreeBSD. I've used it. In
terms of compile, link, and run times, also memory usage, it does not have
an advantage over OW. To the contrary, for GNU users, it brings them up to
our level of performance. If you are programming for systems with 4Gb of
memory or less, you're actually better off using OW. If you need access to
more memory, consider Jiri's fork. He's addressed this.

Marty

Marty Stanquist

2014-09-13 15:14:38 UTC

Permalink

"Marty Stanquist" wrote in message news:lv1hk7$i0v$***@www.openwatcom.org...

"tim_c" wrote in message news:luth7m$k3o$***@www.openwatcom.org...

There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.

News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.

Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?

Clang is now the default compiler on Minix and FreeBSD. I've used it. In
terms of compile, link, and run times, also memory usage, it does not have
an advantage over OW. To the contrary, for GNU users, it brings them up to
our level of performance. If you are programming for systems with 4Gb of
memory or less, you're actually better off using OW. If you need access to
more memory, consider Jiri's fork. He's addressed this.

Marty

If you need GCC compatibility, yes, use Clang. It's mostly compatible. But
this is beyond our scope, however.

Marty

Lynn McGuire

2014-09-15 19:06:48 UTC

Permalink

Post by tim_c
There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.
News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.
Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?
Clang is now the default compiler on Minix and FreeBSD. I've used it. In terms of compile, link, and run times, also memory usage, it
does not have an advantage over OW. To the contrary, for GNU users, it brings them up to our level of performance. If you are
programming for systems with 4Gb of memory or less, you're actually better off using OW. If you need access to more memory, consider
Jiri's fork. He's addressed this.
Marty

Have you thought about mainstreaming Jiri's fork
as OW 2.0?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openwatcom/

Thanks,
Lynn

Marty Stanquist

2014-09-16 01:43:33 UTC

Permalink

Post by tim_c
There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.
News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.
Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?
Clang is now the default compiler on Minix and FreeBSD. I've used it. In
terms of compile, link, and run times, also memory usage, it
does not have an advantage over OW. To the contrary, for GNU users, it
brings them up to our level of performance. If you are
programming for systems with 4Gb of memory or less, you're actually better
off using OW. If you need access to more memory, consider
Jiri's fork. He's addressed this.
Marty

Marty Stanquist

2014-09-16 03:16:01 UTC

Permalink

Post by tim_c
There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.
News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.
Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?
Clang is now the default compiler on Minix and FreeBSD. I've used it. In
terms of compile, link, and run times, also memory usage, it
does not have an advantage over OW. To the contrary, for GNU users, it
brings them up to our level of performance. If you are
programming for systems with 4Gb of memory or less, you're actually better
off using OW. If you need access to more memory, consider
Jiri's fork. He's addressed this.
Marty

Have you thought about mainstreaming Jiri's fork
as OW 2.0?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openwatcom/

Thanks,
Lynn

I'm actually hoping that most DOS, OS/2, and Windows users will transition
over to Jiri's project for the medium term, possibly longer. This is because
I'm looking at doing a new compiler and toolset, based on the ORL/OWL
libraries, that fully support ELF and Mach-O for Unix and OS X. I could be
wrong, but I don't think our efforts would have much in common.

Marty

To clarify further, DOS, OS/2, and Windows object support will also be
handled by the ORL/OWL (object reader and writer) libraries. But these calls
will be implemented later. The toolset will be generally the same for all
platforms, but will be based exclusively on ORL/OWL.

Marty

Lynn McGuire

2014-09-18 18:54:46 UTC

Permalink

Post by Lynn McGuire

Have you thought about turning over the Open Watcom
project to Jiri?

Thanks,
Lynn

Marty Stanquist

2014-09-18 22:22:24 UTC

Permalink

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by tim_c
There has been past interest in the possibilities of LLVM and OW.
News has now reached me that Clang and LLVM are now working on Windows.
http://llvm.org/releases/
Assumes MS Studio integration. Without it just provides some executables.
Is this another nail in the coffin of OW?
Clang is now the default compiler on Minix and FreeBSD. I've used it. In
terms of compile, link, and run times, also memory usage, it
does not have an advantage over OW. To the contrary, for GNU users, it
brings them up to our level of performance. If you are
programming for systems with 4Gb of memory or less, you're actually
better off using OW. If you need access to more memory, consider
Jiri's fork. He's addressed this.
Marty

Have you thought about turning over the Open Watcom
project to Jiri?

Thanks,
Lynn

Effectively, he already has it with his database in SourceForge. Is he
having trouble maintaining it there, or having trouble accessing Perforce or
the OW website?

Marty