[llvm-dev] Improve JIT C API

[Lang Hames via llvm-dev]

Hi Hayden, Eric,

I'm not sure what you mean by "C bindings proper"? Historically the C API
has set a high bar on stability, and I'm not willing/able to guarantee that
level of stability yet. So it's a matter of determining where we should put
C bindings that don't meet the bar for inclusion in "stable".

Eric - Assuming that people want these in the llvm tree rather than in a
separate project, I think 'include/llvm-c/unstable' seems like a good
starting point. We can move it later if/when we come up with something
better.

Cheers,
Lang.



On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lang, aren't you going to be the major (only?) player when it comes to
> Orc APIs, if you're not opposed to it having them in the C bindings
> proper will certainly help. That's my vote, I understand it is
> different from the previous cases but the API surface area here is
> relatively small.
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jauhien,
> >
> > A few people have requested a C API for ORC. I don't think ORC's ready
> for a
> > stable C API, but I'm not opposed to providing C bindings that will
> probably
> > be reasonably stable in practice (though with no guarantees). I've
> actually
> > already knocked up some trivial prototype bindings for Hayden Livingston
> > that could serve as a base (see attached).
> >
> > The next question is where unstable bindings should live. Juergen, Eric,
> > anyone else who wants to weigh in: I looked back over the C API thread,
> but
> > I don't think we settled on a home for this kind of thing. Any thoughts?
> I
> > could see either introducing a new include directory (something along the
> > lines of include/llvm/llvm-c-bindings) or a new c-bindings project on
> > llvm.org. The former would put all LLVM developers on the hook for
> > maintaining the bindings, the latter would leave maintenance to users of
> the
> > bindings project, and any volunteers. I prefer the second option: I don't
> > think core developers should be on the hook for maintaining unstable
> > bindings - that kind of special treatment should be reserved for the
> stable
> > API.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lang.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I would like to have better C API for LLVM JIT, as I have plans to use
> >> it from Rust. I've sent already a patch [1] that adds possibility to
> >> create custom memory managers based on SectionMemoryManager using C API.
> >>
> >> What I would like to have now is a possibility to access ORC through C
> >> API somehow. The problem here is that ORC uses templates heavily. So I'm
> >> looking for any suggestions on how to better wrap its functionality for
> C.
> >>
> >> Also I would thank everybody who'll review my already sent patch.
> >>
> >> [1] http://reviews.llvm.org/D12607
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jauhien
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150907/7e2098e3/attachment.html>