[llvm] r240010 - Update LLVM bindings after r239940. Apparently these aren't included in

[Juergen Ributzka]

Great! Thanks Reid.

> On Jul 17, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> 
> I forgot to mention I fixed this in r242372. LLVMBuildLandingPad has the old API and sets the personality on the parent function.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com <mailto:juergen at apple.com>> wrote:
> Any updates on this? This is currently breaking our use of the C API in WebKit.
> 
> —Juergen
> 
>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:35 PM David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com <mailto:david.majnemer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Sean,
>> 
>> Daniel is a few time zones ahead and likely won't get this, probably best if you do.
>> 
>> That said, we should also talk to David (on the to: line) who put in the personality function change in the first place :)
>> 
>> Yeah. David, is there something reasonable we can do here to avoid breaking compatibility? It looks like this just moved from the instruction to the function. Could we set it on the function instead? (From your commit message on r239940, it seems like any existing correct code already had all of the personality functions within a given function the same, so can we just set the landingpad on the function?)
>> 
>> We could do that but it would be inconsistent with what we have done with linkage.  For example: LLVMSetLinkage with LLVMDLLImportLinkage doesn't call setDLLStorageClass for you.
>> 
>> I wasn't under the impression that LLVMBuildLandingPad was part of a stable interface.  Do we have any documentation or comments to that effect?  I couldn't find anything official looking which stated whether or not the C bindings are supposed to be link, source or otherwise backwards compatible.
>>  
>> 
>> It's been a long standing part of the project (though, like you, I couldn't find the explicit documentation) that the C API is source compatible and that we try very hard to keep it as such. You'll notice lots of places we've done odd commits to try to do so.
>> 
>> IMO we should just make LLVMBuildLandingPad() set the personality of the parent function. Any frontend using the C API will just keep working. It might break more sophisticated users of the C API, but so be it.
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150717/ae44a4ec/attachment.html>