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

[Philip Reames]

On 07/17/2015 02:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>> 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".
+1 to the general notion of stable vs unstable

>
> 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.
-1 to this particular definition thereof
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev