mu1 VS llvm-mingw

I got sick of juggling code that migrated from one category to the other, so I wrote a little script that deals with chopping up a large source file into multiple TUs before feeding them to the compiler.

https://github.com/akkartik/mu1/blob/master/build2

More details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33574154#33575045

This really speaks to me. Modern software is too hard to assemble from source. If you're shipping sources, every moving part you add increases the odds of something going wrong on other people's computers.

It's worth having some skepticism of tools. By making some operations easy, tools encourage them. Build systems make it easy to bloat software. Package managers make it easy to bloat dependencies. This dynamic explains why Python in particular has such a terrible package management story. It's been around longer than Node or Rust, so if they seem better -- wait 10 years!

For many of my side projects I try to minimize moving parts for anyone (usually the '1' is literally true) who tries them out. I work in Unix, and one thing I built is a portable shell script that acts like a build system while being much more transparent about what it does: https://codeberg.org/akkartik/basic-build

When I use this script my build instructions are more verbose, but I think that's a good thing. They're more explicit for newcomers, and they also impose costs that nudge me to keep my programs minimalist.

You can see this build system evolve to add partial builds and parallel builds in one of my projects:

https://github.com/akkartik/mu1/blob/master/build0

https://github.com/akkartik/mu1/blob/master/build1

https://github.com/akkartik/mu1/blob/master/build2

https://github.com/akkartik/mu1/blob/master/build3

https://github.com/akkartik/mu1/blob/master/build4

Each of these does the same thing for this one repo -- build it -- but adding successively more bells and whistles.

I think providing just the most advanced version, build4, would do my users a disservice. It's also the most likely to break, where build0 is rock solid. If my builds do break for someone, they can poke around and downgrade to a simpler version.

Totally agreed!

Here's a prototype from a few years ago where I tried to make this easier: https://github.com/akkartik/mu1#readme (read just the first few paragraphs)

I still think the full answer lies in this direction.

> Doing Python with a C plugin, or just compiling a command line C/C++ isn't really systems programming.

I care about a minimal set of tools in order to compile C/C++ programs. thats offered by:

https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw/releases

and also MSYS2, and even the Zig C compiler. all less than 200 MB. meanwhile Visual Studio installing about 10 GB worth. If Microsoft can offer a similar experience then I am interested.

Pick a community-supported Clang-based Mingw-w64 distribution.

> AFAIK there is no native GCC compiler for Windows

might want to check your facts before spouting nonsense. there is, and has been for many, many years. more than one in fact:

https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw

https://packages.msys2.org/base/mingw-w64-gcc

MinGW is notoriously slow to link compared to MSVC, unless using llvm-mingw with the link=lld SCons option. If using MSVC, make sure to use 2022 or at least 2019 if possible – recent linkers tend to be faster than older versions.

GCC doesn't support windows/arm64, but you should be able to do it with LLVM. I've never gotten it to work myself, but should be able to supply a cross toolchain: https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw

Visual Studio is a bloated mess, and has been for many years. Its at least 10 times larger than other options, such as MinGW-LLVM:

https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw

Sadly Qt ships MinGW 8.1 which is positively ancient (released in 2018). If you're starting a new project (which you likely are if you are installing an IDE aha) there's no reason not to go for more recent compilers - msys2 has GCC12 (https://packages.msys2.org/package/mingw-w64-x86_64-gcc) and Clang 14 (https://packages.msys2.org/package/mingw-w64-x86_64-clang) which just work better overall, have much more complete C++20 support, have less bugs, better compile times (especially clang with the various PCH options that appeared in the last few versions), better static analysis, etc.

Personally I use https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw's releases directly which does not require MSYS but that's because I recompile all my libraries with specific options - if the MSYS libs as they are built are good for you there's no reason not to use them.

you can grab it here: https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw/releases/tag/20211002

Clang (and lld) do support native TLS, and mingw-w64 does have the things that are needed. I think binutils also might have what's needed too, but AFAIK the thing that's missing is support for it in GCC.

Actually, (upstream) Clang defaults to native TLS instead of emulated TLS. In MSYS2, Clang is overridden to use emulated TLS by deafult to interoperate better with GCC built code and libstdc++ though.

The toolchain I maintain, https://github.com/mstorsjo/llvm-mingw, defaults to native TLS throughout.