[cfe-dev] The future of LLVM's C APIs: Notes and BoF.

[Eric Christopher via cfe-dev]

>
>
> 1. It isn't practical to keep a bindings API stable, unless the
>    underlying API is also stable.
>
> 2. Handrolling bindings as they're needed tends to leave conspicuous
>    gaps where some API is inaccessible for no good reason.
>
> So based on (1), we'll really want to create some purpose built APIs
> that we can keep stable for various tasks. What's needed here? People
> want to do things like building a pass manager, setting up a canned JIT
> config, and to some degree even emit IR. We'll discuss what's practical
> and what people want, and hopefully strike a good balance.
>
>
I'm beginning to think that the need here isn't as obvious as it has been
portrayed to be. So if you want a C API for anything stable please come
prepared to justify its existence at all :)


> Similarly, (2) implies that if we really need a *full* bindings API
> we'll want to automate it. But what is a full bindings API? Who uses it,
> and what do they want from it? If it's automated, should installing LLVM
> install this API, or should we simply provide an easy way to generate
> it?
>

Want and can are two different things here. It would be nice to automate
it, but not required I wouldn't think.

Thanks.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20151017/5a1b0178/attachment.html>