similar to: An Update on the C API

"Documentation: We’re going to document this policy in the developer documentation. In addition, any changes to the C API will require documentation in the release notes so that it’s clear to external users who do not follow the project how the C API is changing and evolving." So, yes? -eric On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:55 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Are

(Moving this to llvm-dev) On Friday, October 16, 2015, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Some users of llvm-c want stable API interfaces into various parts of > the LLVM infrasture, others want further ABI guarantees about this > usage, and still others simply want a way to bind to LLVM through their > language frontend’s existing FFI support for C. > > If

Hi all, libLTO is exposing a very “stable” (in the sense of immutable) C API to be used by linkers (and binutils tools) that manipulate bitcode (like when performing LTO). I’m looking into relaxing the stability concern and design a policy for this API that would allow to deprecate and remove some the APIs exposed here. The MacOS linker (ld64) is one the users of libLTO, but there are others

Dear lots of people, The first comments on the 3.7 release expressed surprise that there were no changes to the X86 or ARM targets. There had of course been a lot of hard work and many changes, but none of it was mentioned in the release notes. Please help make the release notes more comprehensive this time. The notes are of course not as important as the actual code, but they do get read, and

On Jul 18, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> I am strongly in favor of moving the bindings, C or otherwise, to >> another project. > > I agree. From my viewpoint we have two primary problems with the C API: > > 1. Many of the LLVM contributors don't use it, and thus, don't have a great understanding of how it can be most-usefully

While I understand the people committing to the primarily C++ codebase of LLVM find it as additional burden, far more number of people enjoy the benefits of an official LLVM C API support than are vocal here. While Clang maybe the first-class LLVM citizen for the foreseeable future, I can tell you LLVM is used in many more situations (I'm talking about Rust, Go, Julia, DLang, etc.) than this

Wow, this went of topic very quickly ;-) As you know I am very interested in an stable API (C and/or C++) for LLVM, but maybe we should discuss this in a separate thread. Designing a good stable API from scratch will take some time and until that point I want to document our current “tribal knowledge”. I will post a patch as you suggested. —Juergen > On Jul 20, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Eric

On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > So, I made this proposal for what I think is a pretty good reason. There's an "unofficial" as Juergen said, policy that the C API is the stable API. There's nothing wrong with a stable C API, but that's what I'm proposing should move out of tree to where those that are most concerned

We covered this particular patch a bit at the C API BoF at the conference, and I think the general opinion is that this was just an unintentional bug and that fixing it is in 3.7.1 is the best solution forward. I'll send out more on the C API BoF as I get out from under a pile of email. -eric On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:07 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > We knew this

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:20 PM Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:37 PM Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Wow, this

I hate to say anything remotely negative to Wayne but... That wording from the man page makes almost no sense without the examples directly after it (and I have read it many times and know what it is saying). When I go all RTFM on this topic I usually tell them to 'man rsync', search for file-will-not-be-found and start reading from that line. Once you understand the broken and correct

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:37 PM Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com <mailto:juergen at apple.com>> wrote: > Wow, this went of topic very quickly ;-) > > > It did. I am sorry about that :) > > As you know I am very interested in an stable API (C and/or

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:12 PM Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote: > I also misunderstood your original transition proposal in this point. I > agree with Jim that we should keep the current C-API where it is and have a > separate location for the bindings. I envision that we will need the > current C-API and the new stable C-API to overlap for at least one release

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > >> > >>> On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> >

I also misunderstood your original transition proposal in this point. I agree with Jim that we should keep the current C-API where it is and have a separate location for the bindings. I envision that we will need the current C-API and the new stable C-API to overlap for at least one release cycle to allow a smooth transition without breaking all the clients out there. Some clients only read the

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hayden Livingston" <halivingston at gmail.com> > To: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > Cc: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Lang > Hames" <lhames at apple.com>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:12 PM Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> > wrote: > >> I also misunderstood your original transition proposal in this point. I >> agree with Jim that we should keep the current C-API where it is and have a >> separate location for the

Hello, Since the very first day I've been using rsync - some 15 years ago - the filtering rules caused great grieve. Their behaviour is just not the way I'd expect it be be and as I read the manpage. Usually I end up with some hand-written recipes, carefully documented,y including all the gotchas. This time however I failed and I see no other way than to ask for advice. Given the

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:45 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < >>