llvm-d

[Jens Mueller]

Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> On Friday, 22 March 2013 at 17:16:26 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
> >Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> >>On Friday, 22 March 2013 at 08:34:11 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
> >>>Updated documentation
> >>>http://jkm.github.com/d-programming-language.org/deimos.html
> >>
> >>NIice, but conforming to the following would create too much
> >>work
> >>for me:
> >>
> >>"For each file a proper module declaration has to be provided"
> >>
> >>Since files in llvm-c appear and dissappear across different
> >>LLVM
> >>versions, you would eventually have to keep files around that
> >>are
> >>many LLVM versions old.
> >
> >Really. I thought the C API was expected to be more stable.
> >Also it's not yet clear how to manage multiple versions of the
> >same
> >library in Deimos. But your feedback helps sharpening which issues
> >should be addressed by Deimos. Thanks.
> 
> Afaict in the rang from 3.1 to 3.3svn it has happened two times:
> - The "Enhanced Disassembly" header exists in 3.2, but has vanished
> in the trunk.
> - The "Linker" header has been added in 3.2 and it is also an
> example of the short files. It contains only a single function
> "LLVMLinkModules" and a single enum for one of the that function's
> parameters.

I see.
I need to think about to handle the different versions.

> >Assuming I can spend some time on deimos-llvm would you switch? I
> >mean I
> >have 3.1. Adding 3.2 is possible. But I would need you to use it
> >and
> >check that it works for your higher level API.
> 
> I could add support for it via a version flag. E.g. set
> -version=DEIMOS_LLVM or something similar. That way someone using
> llvm-d can choose to either use the included C bindings or use your
> deimos compatible ones. My only concern would be that the LLVM C
> function signatures would have to be translated in the same, or at
> least a compatible way in both my C bindings and the deimos ones, so
> using either of them would just be a matter of which import
> statement to use.
> Since I've translated them pretty much strictly according to the
> "interfacing with c" guideline that's probably the case already, but
> I'd have to try it out first.

I would like that. Probably the signatures are already the same. There
is not much freedom when translating them.

Jens