LLVM should be removed from the list

[emipa00]

As of version 19 LLVM does not provide any ARM binaries.

llvm/llvm-project#111118

Apparently ARM-binaries in version 18 was third party and will no longer be published on their repo.

[Tufan0066]

https://snapshots.linaro.org/llvm-toolchain/19/

[ArminiusTux]

Double objection from my part.

On a general note - if a tool or programme drops ARM support for Windows, we should not remove it from our list.
Instead we should note the limitation or last known native build. The only exception I can think of is if the software becomes unusable.

As of LLVM / Clang specifically - indeed Linaro has been somewhat slow on the v19 releases.
Firstly, they initially published the RCs on their snapshot site instead of GitHub as @Tufan0066 mentioned.
Secondly, Linaro caught up for LLVM-19.1.1-woa64.exe & LLVM-19.1.2-woa64.exe
Thirdly, let them (LLVM Project & Linaro) figure out their best release practices (we should expect some delays for the WinARM builds though).

Lastly, whoever needs the latest Clang incarnation (currently v19.1.4) should head over to MSYS2 (which is the better/more useful building environment anyway compared to the stand-alone package, IMHO).

[emipa00]

Seems strange to have applications on the list that does not provide ARM releases, but I leave that up to the maintainer of this page to decide.

In this case perhaps the LLVM application should get a banner or subtitle showing that its unofficial support only and may not be the updated version of the application.

However, I am writing from the perspective of one responsible for application deployment for a university so I might not be the intended user of this page.

[arminask]

I would more agree towards keeping the last supported native build and noting that the official builds are no longer available, just like @ArminiusTux suggested. What do you think?

[emipa00]

I have no objection to that.
I have no information about the usability of the last version as I just manage deployment of them.

[lexcyn]

This link provides some additional context - it's not that they pulled support, they are running into issues with github runners and until that is resolved, Linaro is providing pre-compiled builds from official sources - so yes, while they are not technically "first party" builds, I would still consider them reliable since Linaro is a legitimate organization: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-official-llvm-binary-releases-for-arm-and-aarch64-platforms/82413

[ArminiusTux]

Good news, LLVM for WoA is up to date now - v19.1.3, v19.1.4 & v19.1.5 have been released.
The latest version has a publishing delay to the x86 & x64 editions of less than a day.

[ArminiusTux]

Although v19.1.6 & v19.1.7 took quite a while before being released (it was the end and the beginning of the year after all), the new release candidates (RC1 & RC2) for LLVM v20 popped out within days - so future releases for Windows on ARM [LLVM-xx.y.z-woa64.exe] are still guaranteed.

To make a long story short - is there still a reason not to close this issue?

[trcrsired]

you are wrong. Open Source Compilers like GCC and LLVM are always supposed to build them by yourself. A lot of host has to build by yourself. GCC explicit said they would NEVER release binaries for any platform but only source code. Because the combinations of build/host/targets of toolchains are too many to the point to infinitely and impossible. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Configure-Terms.html

https://github.com/trcrsired/llvm-releases/releases

Here is my own LLVM build and most of them LLVM never supports.

Here is the LLVM 22 i built including WOA one