Can we also codify when something should be added to the C API? For a lot of folks the C API is the only usable interface. I am one of them. We are not as vocally represented because don't generally give back to the community, usually because we are just consumers of this library. (Or maybe I'm totally wrong and lots of us give back). For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:>>> So something that the webkit jit needs is in. Some API that is in C >>> just so someone can statically link a C/Go/Ocaml program with llvm is >>> not. >> >> -1 to this particular definition thereof > > Not a definition, just an example of something that has a reason to > use dynamic linking and work with multiple versions of llvm. > > Cheers, > Rafael > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On 17 July 2015 at 15:04, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote:> Can we also codify when something should be added to the C API? For a > lot of folks the C API is the only usable interface. I am one of them. > > We are not as vocally represented because don't generally give back to > the community, usually because we are just consumers of this library. > (Or maybe I'm totally wrong and lots of us give back). > > For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings.If they are not guaranteed to be stable, I don't think we need any special restrictions on adding new C apis. Cheers, Rafael
I guess Lang isn’t ready to commit to C API yet, since the ORC JIT is still in development. Although I am not sure how to expose all the extensibility that the ORC JIT provides. What is your particular use case? Do you want just an API for all entry point to the ORC JIT or just an API that allows the use of the ORC JIT in a simple and preconfigured way similar to MCJIT? —Juergen> On Jul 17, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > > For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings.-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150720/ea2c6372/attachment.html>
Like MCJIT but with on request compliation :-) I know, Lang isn't ready and that's fine. But it seems like the thread's tune is it will never be ready, i.e. the primary authors of OrcJIT will not be providing the implementation of a C Interface. We're going to use OrcJIT like many others, as a 3rd or 4th tier jit, with inline caching and the works. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote:> I guess Lang isn’t ready to commit to C API yet, since the ORC JIT is still > in development. Although I am not sure how to expose all the extensibility > that the ORC JIT provides. > > What is your particular use case? Do you want just an API for all entry > point to the ORC JIT or just an API that allows the use of the ORC JIT in a > simple and preconfigured way similar to MCJIT? > > —Juergen > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > wrote: > > For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings. > >