Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Michael S Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 14:12:37 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 84 Message-ID: <20250323141237.00000b2e@yahoo.com> References: <20250319115550.0000676f@yahoo.com> <20250319201903.00005452@yahoo.com> <86r02roqdq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <874izntt5t.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87ecyrs332.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250320171505.221@kylheku.com> <8734f7rw7z.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87tt7mqk7w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87cye9afl0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <871puoag2q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250323105043.00000db2@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 13:12:39 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5138e472ad1225bef955c3868b1c8628"; logging-data="2466192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Q9ap2cvGDXuhDkuJKcxeoawSS93hA240=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:cSazfYuEpgMDOjH6BccwyoK6KNU= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:25:14 +0000 bart wrote: > On 23/03/2025 08:50, Michael S wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 01:34:54 +0000 > > bart wrote: > > =20 > >> > >> It's strange: in one part of the computing world, the speed of > >> building software is a very big deal. All sorts of efforts are > >> going on to deal with it. Compilation speed for developers is > >> always an issue. There is a general movement away from LLVM-based > >> backends /because/ it is so slow. > >> =20 > >=20 > > What "general movement" are you talking about? > > I can't recollect any new* language for general-purpose computers > > that is used by more than dozen* persons which is not based on LLVM > > back end. Despite its undeniable slowness. =20 >=20 > There's Rust + Cranelift: >=20 > "The goal of this project is to create an alternative codegen backend=20 > for the rust compiler based on Cranelift. This has the potential to=20 > improve compilation times in debug mode." >=20 It looks like a schism. Since Rust is sort of religious movement, schisms are inevitable part of it. > There's Go which was never based on LLVM: >=20 > "At the beginning of the project we considered using LLVM for gc but=20 > decided it was too large and slow to meet our performance goals." >=20 > ('gc' is 'Go Compiler'. Maybe Go is older than 15 years?=20 Yes, it is. 17+. > Still, LLVM=20 > seems to have been around In 2007 LLVM was formally 7 y.o. but until 2005 it was a tiny project with very little (or none?) payed workforce. I can't say it with certainty, but it seems that LLVM didn't really become usable until 2008-2009. > and was thought to be slow then.) >=20 gollvm certainly exists and works. Users that want to use go on something other than very few platforms supported by Google's "self hosted" implementation appear to have two main choices: gogcc and gollvm. I don't know which is chosen more often. > And there's Zig: >=20 Isn't current distribution of Zig based on LLVM? Just wondering, the chance that Zig will fly by now approaches zero. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3D39154513 >=20 > There are other's comments: >=20 > "LLVM used to be hailed as a great thing, but with language projects=20 > such as Rust, Zig and others complaining it's bad and slow and > they're moving away from it =E2=80=93 how bad is LLVM really?" >=20 > Here's is a random quote from Reddit: >=20 > "2 minutes is really good for a full build. 2 minutes is pretty bad > for a one line change. >=20 > I also quit my job recently because of their terrible infrastructure.=20 > All home-grown of course. A horrible mess of Python, C++ and Make. >=20 > So demotivating. And nobody except me cared." >=20 > TBH, for me 2 minutes would be really terrible even for a full build. > So would 2 seconds! (How big was this executable?) >=20