Writing Fibonacci in LLVM with llvmlite

zamalek · on March 7, 2016

> Have you ever built LLVM from source? If you want to hate yourself and your for a few hours try that sucker out.

I really have to hand it to the LLVM team, getting LLVM to build on Windows was absolutely nothing more than a matter of installing CMake and running it. It's usually far easier to build from source on Linux.

The documentation on the other hand...

vmorgulis · on March 7, 2016

I think he is talking of hours of compiling.

As you say, LLVM build system works well. I use it indirectly thru emscripten.

Prebuilt binaries for LLVM and clang are easily accessible:

http://llvm.org/releases/download.html

zamalek · on March 7, 2016

> Prebuilt binaries for LLVM and clang are easily accessible

Admittedly I haven't checked in a few months, however, either only one VC version (VC breaks either ABI or stdlib compatibility with almost every release) or only the release runtime (stdlib incompatible with the debug runtime) is available, I can't remember which. That's the case with most OSS C++ projects - even on Windows it's best to just build from source.

I don't remember being particularly annoyed with the build time, but then again I'm not using it for anything job related.

vmorgulis · on March 7, 2016

> That's the case with most OSS C++ projects - even on Windows it's best to just build from source.

Yes, it's better.

Building clang+llvm takes about 2 hours on my machine. Last time I used the prebuilt binaries to check the status of C++17 in clang. I remember looking at the paths with "ldd" to see if their clang linked properly with their llvm. It was OK.

There is an ongoing ABI change in gcc for C++. Maybe it's finished now.