On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote:> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it > >> yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) > > > > Or the other way around, or something. :) > > :) I'm adding it now.I'd really appreciate JIT support from OCaml while you're there and if you'd like to send me some money as well that'd be great. ;-) Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project and alleviate some stress from Chris et al? Might be easier if a community want to tinker with ideas, e.g. for a higher-level interface. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e
Hi Jon, On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote:> On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >> >>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>> it yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) >>> >>> Or the other way around, or something. :) >> >> :) I'm adding it now. > > I'd really appreciate JIT support from OCaml while you're there and > if you'd like to send me some money as well that'd be great. ;-):) Well, this commit should be a good template for adding bindings for new libraries.> Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate projectCan you be more specific than "stuff"?> and alleviate some stress from Chris et al? Might be easier if a > community want to tinker with ideas, e.g. for a higher-level > interface.Chris doesn't have Ocaml installed, AFAIK, so I don't know how much of a concern that is. ;) I'd probably be the first line of review. — Gordon
Gordon Henriksen wrote:> Hi Jon, > > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >> >>> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>>> it yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) >>>>> >>>> Or the other way around, or something. :) >>>> >>> :) I'm adding it now. >>> >> I'd really appreciate JIT support from OCaml while you're there and >> if you'd like to send me some money as well that'd be great. ;-) >> > > :) Well, this commit should be a good template for adding bindings for > new libraries. > > >> Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of >> LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project >> > > Can you be more specific than "stuff"? > > >> and alleviate some stress from Chris et al? Might be easier if a >> community want to tinker with ideas, e.g. for a higher-level >> interface. >> > > > Chris doesn't have Ocaml installed, AFAIK, so I don't know how much of > a concern that is. ;) I'd probably be the first line of review. > >I'd be inclined to push for at least the binding staying linked with LLVM's releases, at least from a version control point of view, or it would get difficult to keep them working together reliably. As for other ocaml-based tools, I'm not so concerned, though obviously if they turn out to be very useful it might make sense to distribute them with the core release. [s]
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Gordon Henriksen wrote:>> and alleviate some stress from Chris et al? Might be easier if a >> community want to tinker with ideas, e.g. for a higher-level >> interface. > Chris doesn't have Ocaml installed, AFAIK, so I don't know how much of > a concern that is. ;) I'd probably be the first line of review.I'm happy to continue letting Gordon worry about it :) -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
On Monday 10 December 2007 23:52, Gordon Henriksen wrote:> On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Incidentally, should more OCaml stuff beyond the bindings be part of > > LLVM or would it be better to fork them into a separate project > > Can you be more specific than "stuff"?I'm thinking of a library that compiles an AST represented by an OCaml data structure into the appropriate calls to LLVM. Ultimately, with support for exceptions and a run-time.> > and alleviate some stress from Chris et al? Might be easier if a > > community want to tinker with ideas, e.g. for a higher-level > > interface. > > Chris doesn't have Ocaml installed, AFAIK, so I don't know how much of > a concern that is. ;) I'd probably be the first line of review.Wow, how does he autogenerate that C++ code without OCaml? ;-) -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e