[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?

[Chris Lattner]

On Oct 28, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> Creating another method (getLazyFunctionPointer) or passing a boolean,
> enum, whatever seems like the best course of action right now.
>


I think that this is a great idea.  Instead of making "lazy or not" be  
a policy maintained by the JIT, why don't we approach this as a bug in  
the current API.  Perhaps we should remove getPointerToFunction() and  
introduce two new methods (one lazy and one eager)?

-Chris