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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[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