[llvm-dev] Improve JIT C API

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:17 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Up to you.

-eric


> 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/20150908/fcbc6425/attachment.html>