Re: suggestion for Merging LLVM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Pulling in bits of LLVM itself into sparse, to make older versions work,
> seems like a mess of work and maintenance without a driving need.   Just
> note that 3.0 is required, and things will sort themselves out in time.

I hate big mess too. However I have a strong motivation to support the
released version of LLVM (if it does make a big mess in the process).

I am not asking to back port the LLVM 3.0 code to the 2.x series.
That is wrong.  If 2.x does not have not provide this features, I am fine
with not supporting 2.x LLVM and require 3.0 only.

However if it is just C vs C++ API, I don't mind accessing the C++ API in 2.x.
I believe we need to have a mechanism to use the LLVM C++ API any way.
The LLVM C API is only a subset of the C++ API. I draw the line at
accessing the API vs backing the LLVM code.

In the long way, sparse will have to deal with different version of
LLVM any way.

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Newbies FAQ]     [Kernel List]     [Site Home]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

Powered by Linux