Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

File for divorce from LLVM

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 167 posts

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#11

Post by paddw »

tyg13 wrote: post #8
chubot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it seems like most of the responses are against this proposal For casual readers, it's a proposal, not something decided

Sure, but it's a proposal from Andrew Kelley, the language creator, and it's got a bunch of thought-out subitems that seem to have real progress being made. It seems more likely than not that this will come to pass, unless the community reaction really is heavily against.

I mean, one of the checkboxes under LLVM is literally "optimization passes", so... I don't know how close they are to the end goal in terms of progress actually

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#12

Post by tyg13 »

keyle wrote: post #5

Every time I hear about LLVM, it turns into a rant. Clearly there is a problem there that needs to be fixed. Maybe the LLVM project team should address those issues.

The "problem" with the LLVM project is its massive success, coupled with its incredibly difficult problem domain. Turns out it's actually really hard to write modular compiler infrastructure that serves as the optimizer and code generator for N different arbitrary programming languages. The fact that it works in this capacity at all, and still manages to be competitive with GCC in its original use-case (being a C/C++ backend) is a monumental and unmatched achievement.

As someone who works on an LLVM-based compiler at $DayJob and also has written a compiler front-end that uses LLVM in my free time, I do have a ton of gripes, but any time I feel particularly frustrated by them, I spend a little bit of time working on my non-LLVM backend. After a few days of angry swearing with little to show for it, I go back to working with LLVM with a much greater appreciation for what it's giving me.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#13

Post by tyg13 »

paddw wrote: post #11
tyg13 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's a proposal from Andrew Kelley, the language creator, and it's got a bunch of thought-out subitems that seem to have real progress being made. It seems more likely than not that this will come to pass, unless the community reaction really is heavily against.

I mean, one of the checkboxes under LLVM is literally "optimization passes", so... I don't know how close they are to the end goal in terms of progress actually

I did get quite a hearty chuckle out of that.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#16

Post by frmdstryr »

So I spent ~4 years writing all my embedded projects (and libraries) in Zig and now several "tier 1" supported arches are just going to be dropped?

It's your language so do whatever you want but please adjust the branding accordingly...

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#17

Post by tiehuis »

tyg13 wrote: post #8
chubot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it seems like most of the responses are against this proposal For casual readers, it's a proposal, not something decided

Sure, but it's a proposal from Andrew Kelley, the language creator, and it's got a bunch of thought-out subitems that seem to have real progress being made. It seems more likely than not that this will come to pass, unless the community reaction really is heavily against.

I wouldn't assume that just because Andrew has written the proposal it will be accepted. There have been plenty of times where proposals from Andrew have been rejected and/or reworked.

The sub-items of this task are still valuable to complete even if this overarching proposal were declined. Most of them are not being completed as a prerequisite for this proposal. There are benefits gained even without the full removal of LLVM.

I can really respect the really wide-reaching views and goals of Andrew with zig and in proposals like this, even if I don't agree.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#18

Post by hryx »

runevault wrote: post #6

With the amount Zig promoted being able to use it to compile c (and maybe c++ I forget) only to decide no LLVM at all seems wild. Without a LOT more people chipping in to support the odds of even coming close to the platform support of LLVM seems incredibly unlikely as well. I would understand planning to add another backend of their own for those who want that, but just getting rid of LLVM seems... rash?

It might be rash if work had already started on it, but as with the other proposals on the issue tracker not labeled with "accepted", this is just a call for discussion and counter-proposals. At this point it's just the team collecting feedback, learning about affected use cases, and gauging feasibility -- opposite of rash, I'd say.

Re: File for divorce from LLVM

#20

Post by dagmx »

keyle wrote: post #5

Every time I hear about LLVM, it turns into a rant. Clearly there is a problem there that needs to be fixed. Maybe the LLVM project team should address those issues.

Part of the issue is that LLVM is stuck between two very hard places.

1. Needing to support tons of different platforms with various different documented and undocumented behaviours

2. Needing to support many languages with specifically undefined behaviour.

Trying to bridge the undefined nature of the two sides means that things can be fragile. Assumptions that worked for one set of undefined problems may not work for another.

But so much depends on LLVM these days that I can’t think of it as anything but a success. A flawed success but one that is doing its best to bring order to a naturally chaotic problem space.

GCC and MSVC have similar problems because it’s inherent to the problem space. So while it’s frustrating hitting those bugs, everyone in the space knows they aren’t fundamental issues with the project itself.

Post reply on HN