search for: llvmconvertmoduletoc

LLVMConvertModuleToC Patch to LLVM-C -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LLVMConvertModuleToCPatch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3075 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100916/d866557f/attachment.obj> -----...

On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:35 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > LLVMConvertModuleToC Patch to LLVM-C > > <LLVMConvertModuleToCPatch> > *shrug* One of the things about the C API is that it's a "support forever" sort of thing. Is this kind of thing a big enough use case that we want to have an API specifically for it? -eric

...ly 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. - Filip On 16 Sep 2010, at 19:51, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:35 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > >> LLVMConvertModuleToC Patch to LLVM-C >> >> <LLVMConvertModuleToCPatch> >> > > *shrug* One of the things about the C API is that it's a "support forever" sort > of thing. Is this kind of thing a big enough use case that we want to have > an API specifically for it? &...

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

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

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

> > >> 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

On 17 Sep 2010, at 23:14, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> >>> 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 Done, and I will make an

What do you guys/girls think about LLVM-C additions that are similar to the following: char * LLVMConvertModuleToC(LLVMModuleRef aModule); Which creates the X-code for a given module (in this case for the language C). - Filip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100916/2e6cc84d/attachment.html> ---------...