On Mar 23, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Reid Spencer wrote:> I dunno. You want me to actually think about this stuff? :) > > I'd have to derive the actual set of required libraries, but I'm > lacking > motivation for that task right now.OK, here's my current minimalist proposal: backend: Either a native backend or a C backend. engine: Enough libs to run ExecutionEngine using either a JIT or interpreter. all: All LLVM libraries. Please feel free to suggest better names. :-) Cheers, Eric
That's a good enough place to start. We can add more later, if desired. The names are fine. Reid. On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 08:46 -0500, Eric Kidd wrote:> On Mar 23, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Reid Spencer wrote: > > I dunno. You want me to actually think about this stuff? :) > > > > I'd have to derive the actual set of required libraries, but I'm > > lacking > > motivation for that task right now. > > OK, here's my current minimalist proposal: > > backend: Either a native backend or a C backend. > engine: Enough libs to run ExecutionEngine using either a JIT or > interpreter. > all: All LLVM libraries. > > Please feel free to suggest better names. :-) > > Cheers, > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060323/2a19ec7d/attachment.sig>
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote:>> I'd have to derive the actual set of required libraries, but I'm lacking >> motivation for that task right now. > > OK, here's my current minimalist proposal: > > backend: Either a native backend or a C backend. > engine: Enough libs to run ExecutionEngine using either a JIT or > interpreter. > all: All LLVM libraries. > > Please feel free to suggest better names. :-)Instead of 'engine', how about "jit" and "interpreter". Of course I'd think that "jit+interpreter" would also work (or something). -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:37 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Eric Kidd wrote: >> backend: Either a native backend or a C backend. >> engine: Enough libs to run ExecutionEngine using either a JIT or >> interpreter. >> all: All LLVM libraries. >> >> Please feel free to suggest better names. :-) > > Instead of 'engine', how about "jit" and "interpreter". Of course > I'd think that "jit+interpreter" would also work (or something).Right now, you can already use the following components: "--libs interpreter": Include just the interpreter. "--libs jit native": Include the JIT and the native backend for the current platform. If you say "engine", though, it will automatically choose between these two options for you. This seems like a useful thing to have. For a list of all possible components, run: llvm-config --components You should be able to pick any LLVM library by name.[1] Cheers, Eric [1] Except "LLVMBackend.o", which clashes with the virtual "backend" component, and can only be pulled in by another library. Maybe I should rename the virtual "backend" component. :-(