From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
To: Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-Sparse <linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: suggestion for Merging LLVM
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:18:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ECFF825.2010906@garzik.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANeU7Qm6Q3hxeEUFKJieapfXrZ1PGSJ_4oGbZ4CG7s1ccbbPPQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/25/2011 02:13 PM, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>>
>> Pulling in bits of LLVM itself into sparse, to make older versions work,
>> seems like a mess of work and maintenance without a driving need. Just
>> note that 3.0 is required, and things will sort themselves out in time.
>
> I hate big mess too. However I have a strong motivation to support the
> released version of LLVM (if it does make a big mess in the process).
>
> I am not asking to back port the LLVM 3.0 code to the 2.x series.
> That is wrong. If 2.x does not have not provide this features, I am fine
> with not supporting 2.x LLVM and require 3.0 only.
>
> However if it is just C vs C++ API, I don't mind accessing the C++ API in 2.x.
> I believe we need to have a mechanism to use the LLVM C++ API any way.
> The LLVM C API is only a subset of the C++ API. I draw the line at
> accessing the API vs backing the LLVM code.
According to http://llvm.org/ the release date for 3.0 is November 30,
downgrading due to impatience. If Pekka wants to get it going on 2.x
I've no objection, but I am lazy and see no reason to do any extra work
with 3.0 release so close.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-25 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-22 2:43 suggestion for Merging LLVM Christopher Li
2011-11-22 5:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-11-22 6:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-22 20:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-11-22 20:38 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-23 4:11 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-11-23 6:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-11-23 6:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-25 1:45 ` Christopher Li
2011-11-25 2:25 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-11-25 5:52 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-25 6:28 ` Christopher Li
2011-11-25 6:43 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-25 8:05 ` Christopher Li
2011-11-25 8:29 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-25 17:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2011-11-25 19:13 ` Christopher Li
2011-11-25 20:18 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2011-11-25 20:30 ` Christopher Li
2011-12-13 20:29 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-15 21:34 ` Christopher Li
2011-12-20 8:53 ` Pekka Enberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4ECFF825.2010906@garzik.org \
--to=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=sparse@chrisli.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.