| |||||||||||||
Why Binaries?Why Binaries?Posted Dec 22, 2012 22:33 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648)In reply to: LLVM 3.2 released by blanch1 Parent article: LLVM 3.2 released
Binaries, Shminaries!! Why not compile from source code? It took me about one hour to do so (both LLVM and Clang) on a 32-bit Centrino Duo 1.6GHz laptop. And, since I had the previous version installed (also from source), I was able to compile LLVM and Clang with... LLVM and Clang. Self-hosting compilers FTW! </silly Saturday afternoon comment> ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Why Binaries? Posted Dec 23, 2012 13:09 UTC (Sun) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768) [Link]
But then you have to compile twice. Once with the old compiler and then again with the new one.
Why Binaries? Posted Dec 23, 2012 14:13 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] And I did just that. Hey, I've got two hours to spare on a Saturday afternoon. :)
Why Binaries? Posted Jan 6, 2013 2:55 UTC (Sun) by nickbp (subscriber, #63605) [Link]
I hope you didn't forget to funroll all your loops in the process.
Clang has loop funrolling, right?
Why Binaries? Posted Jan 9, 2013 15:53 UTC (Wed) by hpro (subscriber, #74751) [Link]
funrolling; a non-copyright infringing name for the unexpected showing of a eighties music video.
|
|||||||||||||