search for: c_void_p

...would be a good idea to discuss these differences, to make sure we work towards a common goal. I think the main differences between our bindings are: * Auto generated vs manual ctypes declarations. From your comment above I assume you would prefer auto generated too. * Types inheriting from c_void_p vs having a ptr attribute. My bindings has for example Module (indirectly) inheriting from c_void_p, that way there is no "from_param" methods needed, and no extra attribute of the actual pointer. I'm not sure this is better. I might have done with separate pointer as you...

On 3/17/2012 4:14 PM, Anders Waldenborg wrote: > FYI: > > I've also been working on new python bindings. > > My bindings are written using ctypes (just like the in-tree > clang/cindex bindings). Most of Core.h is bound, and stuff from > ExecutionEngine.h, Analysis, BitReader, BitWriter. The have fairly > good test coverage (using nosetests). The ctypes definitions are

At Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:12:08 +0100, Christoph Grenz wrote: > > Hello, > > Am Donnerstag, 15. März 2012, 21:15:02 schrieb Gregory Szorc: > > There was some talk on IRC last week about desire for Python bindings to > > LLVM's Object.h C interface. So, I coded up some and you can now find > > some Python bindings in trunk at bindings/python. Currently, the >

...I'm not too concerned about this consistency. llvm-py began many years ago. Assumptions may be different now. I think we should do what makes sense today. If that is the same great. If not, oh well. > (partially this also is a consequence of the fact that my bindings > inherits from c_void_p making it a bit messier) > Yup :) Since I started without this inheritance restriction, I was able to go with what I consider a more "Pythonic" approach: initializers. > My bindings have python/bindings/lib/llvm > /tests >...