Displaying 20 results from an estimated 30000 matches similar to: "An Update on the C API"
2015 Nov 20
3
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
2015 Oct 17
3
The future of LLVM's C APIs: Notes and BoF.
(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
2016 Sep 30
7
libLTO C API stability policy
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
2016 Feb 12
15
[3.8 Release] Please write release notes!
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
2015 Jul 19
3
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2015 Jul 20
4
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2015 Jul 20
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2015 Jul 20
4
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2015 Nov 09
2
Request to merge r242372 into the 3.7 branch: Fix for C API incompatibility between 3.6 and 3.7.
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
2015 Jul 20
3
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2016 May 05
3
Yet another filter question
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
2015 Jul 20
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
> 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
2015 Jul 29
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2015 Sep 04
5
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
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:
> >>>
> >>>
>
2015 Jul 20
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2015 Sep 04
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
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
2015 Jul 20
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
----- 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>
2015 Jul 29
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API
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
2016 May 03
4
Yet another filter question
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
2015 Sep 04
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
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 <
>>