Re: suggestion for Merging LLVM
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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
[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]