[LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API

[Rafael Espíndola]

> c) One of the big things appears to be the push and pull for "A C API for
> all C++ entry points" along with "We don't want to get locked into
> immobility because we have a C API for all C++ entry points". Perhaps part
> of this might be defining an actual stable set of things along with an
> unstable set of things?

This is a good idea. We should clearly document a subset that is stable.

Being stable should also have a very high bar. Things like "we have a
shipping product that has to work with two versions of llvm and has to
dynamic link with it".

So something that the webkit jit needs is in. Some API that is in C
just so someone can statically link a C/Go/Ocaml program with llvm is
not.

Cheers,
Rafael