|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Is there any way to capitalize the LVM in Llvm in the title?
Low level virtual machine -> Low Level Virtual Machine ?
- I have moved the page from Low level virtual machine to Low Level Virtual Machine. -- Tobias Bergemann 08:06, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
Why reference to libJIT is deleted? Any marketing reason?
I noticed that reference to libJIT is always deleted. It has many of similar goals to LLVM. Why is it deleted?
See also "libJIT vs LLVM discussion" Rhys Weatherley (libJIT) and Chris Lattner (LLVM)
Should this article discuss things Chris Lattner is doing with LLVM at Apple?
- Yes. Use of the project in a major software component deployed to large numbers of users like the MacOSX OpenGL implementation is clearly worth mentioning. JulesH 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the claim that a program with no "cast" instructions is type safe. Type safety requires more than just lack of type coercion (particularly, we must check that array bounds are not exceeded and that no pointers to an object are used after the end of that object's lifetime); also the point is academic anyway as it is nearly impossible to write a non-trivial program that doesn't use the 'cast' instruction. (Possible reference if we want to put something about type safety back in) JulesH 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
(And, yes, in case you're wondering, I am the Jules who posted the question that was a reply to). JulesH 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in the safecode project, which aims to add type safety to LLVM: safecode
Initial release date wrong
The shown initial release date seems wrong. This mail is the initial announcement and it dates to 2003. Maybe the idea was conceived in 2000 :-) The oldest news date back to 2002. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- (Much, much, later:) Yep. 2000 was when they started the project. I forget whether they released any pre-1.0 versions, but 1.0 was definitely released in October 2003, so I've updated the infobox to say 2003. Cheers, CWC 13:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Objective-C "was somewhat moribund" in gcc? If it was moribund, how come it is still alive in gcc? If it still is moribund, just remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball – it is not proper to make prophetic "predictions" about future in Wikipedia. What does the stmt "somewhat moribund" mean? That the compiler is a little dead/stagnant but it is not easy to realize it? If it is not easy to realize it, why does the subjective statement "moribund" apply? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- There has been no main-line development of Obj-C in over a decade. By most definitions that is "moribund". But since anyone could pick up active development at any time, saying it is completely moribund would be predicting the future. So, "somewhat moribund". If there is a better commonly used term for this, please, edit away.
- But I'm not sure that's what you're asking. I don't understand the "easy to recognize" issue, nor the crystal ball comment. Can you clarify? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- How has there been "no main-line development of Obj-C in over a decade" if the recent Objective C 2.0 has brought many new features to Objective-C, and still being more improved as we speak in redacted upcoming development ? Snails man ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Moribund" is equal to "dying" according to my dictionary. That means it will "die" if it is "moribund". Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I think the objective (if such exists) nonpredicting expression is "the development is currently stagnant", or some such. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think, will "is stagnant" be an acceptable replacement for "is somewhat moribund"? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The German LLVM article has a section on KLEE: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Level_Virtual_Machine#KLEE. Should the English version? The English entry for KLEE is for a radio station, without even a disambiguator.
LLVM is no longer an initialism (not acronym) of Low Level Virtual Machine. If you check the official website at llvm.org, there are no references to "Low Level Virtual Machine". On the LLVM mailing list, it was confirmed by an LLVM developer that the "Low Level Virtual Machine" name is gone ( and ). So the page should be renamed to LLVM (removing the redirect that is currently there), and Low Level Virtual Machine should only be a redirect to LLVM. DirtY iCE (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! I have to confirm a few things just to make sure. The lists.cs.uiuc.ed reference has someone saying the name was changed, but does not indicate who that person is. You know how we are at Wikipedia -- everything needs to be verifiable.
- I read a bunch of replies on that site, and one of them says Wikipedia still has the old name, and another says "Who you gonna believe Jianzhou, Wikipedia or the original author?" but once again I don't know who that person is who wrote that.
- Also the URL "lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/" sure sounds like an official developers mailing list, but of course that needs to be verified.
- OK, lets look at your other URL: http://llvm.org/ and see if we can fill in some of the gaps:
- The present page confirms that is the official LLVM website. Let's see... "useful Links" has a link to "LLVM-dev"... Aha! http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev is the LLVM Developers Mailing List and http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/ is the archive of same. That confirms that.
- Going back to the main page, the LLVM developers are listed at http://llvm.org/developers.cgi Checking... Bingo! Chris Lattner -- the author of the email -- is listed.
- So we now have confirmed from the developers that "LLVM" is now the name, not an acronym. And, because I documented each step above, any other Wikipedia editor now or in the future can also confirm this.
- Now for the nuts and bolts of that redirect. I have never done a swap like this, so off to the Wikipedia help system for me. ... OK, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page seems to cover it, especially the section titled "Moves where the target name has an existing page" (reads the docs) I am not sure if the redirect makes this a special case, so I am going to ask for help at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves
- Done. The request is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Technical_requests
- So, if I did it right, the redirects will be switched, or we will be told why not. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
assembly code vs object code
ACM Software System Award
- Good point. And now it does. Cheers, CWC 05:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)