search for: d12685

On Aug 18, 2015, at 10:41 PM, deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote: > Let's not get this die. The C API is too valuable to let this die. > > I propose the following plan: > - Add tests for the current API. This will allow to make sure that everything works and would ensure that changes are made intentionally, nto accidentally. > - For area that do not exist in the

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jauhien, > > A few people have requested a C API for ORC. I don't think ORC's ready for > a stable C API, but I'm not opposed to providing C bindings that will > probably be reasonably stable in practice (though with no guarantees). I've > actually already knocked up some trivial

...easonable effort to avoid doing so > first, for users' sake. And don't change the ABI of existing functions. > > And thus, if ORC is at that level (probably is?), I think it should just > go in there with all the rest of them. > > BTW, have a patch: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12685 saying that in more > words. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150907/8e8dff99/attachment.html>