Re: suggestion for Merging LLVM

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/25/2011 02:13 PM, Christopher Li wrote:
> 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.

According to http://llvm.org/ the release date for 3.0 is November 30, 
downgrading due to impatience.  If Pekka wants to get it going on 2.x 
I've no objection, but I am lazy and see no reason to do any extra work 
with 3.0 release so close.

	Jeff


--
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