search for: froztek

...eresting to see what the SWIG-style solution can do in this direction as opposed to the C-binding approach. If it results in better and/or lower maintenance/development cost bindings for specific target languages, I'm all for it. -Chandler On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Søren Bøg <sbg at froztek.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been lurking around the LLVM project for a couple of months now. > The two recent threads about python bindings for LLVM ([1] and [2]), > combined with the fact that I am looking for at GSoC project at the > moment. Lead to the idea of making the...

Hi, I've been lurking around the LLVM project for a couple of months now. The two recent threads about python bindings for LLVM ([1] and [2]), combined with the fact that I am looking for at GSoC project at the moment. Lead to the idea of making the "public" parts of LLVM SWIG[3]-friendly and basing a set of python bindings on this. My reasoning for doing it this way, is that it

...solution can do in this > direction as opposed to the C-binding approach. If it results in > better and/or lower maintenance/development cost bindings for specific > target languages, I'm all for it. > > -Chandler > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Søren Bøg <sbg at froztek.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been lurking around the LLVM project for a couple of > months now. > The two recent threads about python bindings for LLVM ([1] and > [2]), > combined with the fact that I am looking for...