ahnoun (a.a.a.a@a.a.a.a) on 4/21/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 4/21/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Pardon me?
>>
>>Why don't you download the junk yourself and compile using
>>
>>llvm-gcc
>>
>>It's using GCC 4.2.1 allright.
>
>This is one of those times when it would be deeply satisfying to just link a facepalm-guy
>picture. I guess I'll make one final effort to get through to you instead. Pay
>attention for once! It's all on the front page of llvm.org:
>
>"2. Clang is an "LLVM native" C/C++/Objective-C compiler [...]
>3. dragonegg and llvm-gcc 4.2 integrate the LLVM optimizers and code generator
>with the GCC 4.5 (which is GPL3) and GCC 4.2 (which is GPL2) parsers, respectively. [...]"
>
>To spell it out in even more detail for you:
>
>LLVM began life as an academic research project. It is not a complete compiler,
>it's a backend, because that's what the focus of the research was. In order to
>test it, the researchers needed a parser to generate AST (abstract syntax tree)
>data. Rather than write one from scratch, they hacked apart gcc and borrowed its
>parser. That project still lives today as "dragonegg" and "llvm-gcc": compilers
>which use pieces of gcc to parse source code, and LLVM as the backend.
>
>Maybe the researchers always intended to write a non-GCC parser, maybe mot, I don't
>know, but what's certain is that after Apple got involved a new parser became a
>very important project. This because Apple has at least two reasons to stop using
>GCC. (*) The result is Clang. The Clang parser plus the LLVM backend is a complete
>C/C++/ObjC/ObjC++ compiler which contains no GCC code.
>
>* - One being Apple's difficulties working with GCC maintainers (probably not enough
>on its own), and the other being Apple's desire to not touch GPLv3 with a hundred-foot pole.
>
>>And indeed they did modify gcc 4.2.1 a little.
>>
>>This is the latest release of clang+llvm version 2.9
>>
>>If they additional to that also started their own C compiler, that would be pretty
>>amazing, as from their homepage the advice is to use the GCC port for compiling C.
>
>You're lying. They give no such advice on their homepage.
>
>>You are claiming now that they also started building their own C compiler?
>
>I do not merely claim that they started. I claim that they are finished, or nearly so.
>
>>The project is a joke for now, how can you take it serious?
>
>This discussion is the joke. I'm sure that even though it's been explained to
>you many times over, you'll still figure out some way to keep believing that clang is really gcc.
>

BTW, I can't find clear instructions of how to make binary distribution of Clang for Mingw32/x86 work.
Do I need to download only Clang binaries or also LLVM binaries? Is gnuwin32 optional or mandatory?
The documentation talks a lot about compiling from source but close to nothing at all about configuring Windows binary distributions others than one for VS2005.

They dare to suggest to read documentation twice. I'd say they should read it at least ones by themselves and try to figure out what's missing.