llvm dev - Sep 2010 - [LLVMdev] LLVM-C Patch : LLVMConvertModuleToC

I could extract all the functionality into wrapper methods. So that it would be
possible to create such a thing in C.
But without considering the coding standards (it comes directly out of my
repository), why would you object against this?
It seemed logical to me, to be able to create code in C, and then generate C out
of it. This would be useful in things like a new flex/bison.
And combining modules is something that seemed a primitive to me.

- Filip


On 16 Sep 2010, at 20:44, Eric Christopher wrote:
> 
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, F van der Meeren wrote:
> 
>> I don't see why not.
>> C is a worthy language, one that I think we should fully support.
>> And by just providing some minor features really limits its usefulness.
>> Right now, at this very instance it isn't usable. Except as a
stepping stone to the bigger framework.
>> 
>> But thats just my 2 cents.
> 
> Been thinking more about this.  It seems to violate the idea of thin
wrappers around the C++ APIs.  This mostly seems to be an entire program as a C
function instead of a wrapper.  I think if you want to abstract out the
functionality of this into C functions it might be more applicable.
> 
> Also, no iostream and the indenting really doesn't follow the coding
standards :)
> 
> -eric
>

On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:58 AM, F van der Meeren wrote:
> I could extract all the functionality into wrapper methods. So that it
would be possible to create such a thing in C.
> But without considering the coding standards (it comes directly out of my
repository), why would you object against this?
Because nothing else works that way and I don't see expanding the C API to
include various bits of random functionality that could be gotten by just
wrapping the proper C++ calls.
> It seemed logical to me, to be able to create code in C, and then generate
C out of it. This would be useful in things like a new flex/bison.
Ur?
> And combining modules is something that seemed a primitive to me.
Why not just wrap the Linker interface?

-eric

> 
> 
>> And combining modules is something that seemed a primitive to me.
> 
> Why not just wrap the Linker interface?
To be more specific, why not just wrap certain specific Linker calls instead of
another big function that does a huge amount of work?

-eric