+1 to bring the option back and send improvements upstream if necessary On Mar 28, 2011 6:41 PM, "Christoph Otto" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/28/2011 06:16 PM, Vasily Chekalkin wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Whitworth >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Vasily Chekalkin<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> We can ask. But it will mean that we'll be blocked on our side until >>>> after "extended LLVM C API" will be developed. Do we want to wait for >>>> about 1 year before getting anything useful? >>> >>> We should still ask for them to improve the API. >>> >>> Could we create an extension project which adds a proper C wrapper >>> around LLVM for use with Parrot? That way we can write the wrappers we >>> need with C++, but leave the normal Parrot build unaffected. >> >> Yes. It's definitely possible: >> >> 1. Create new project. >> 2. Setup build infrastructure. Based on autotools/scons/cmake because >> it should be cross-platform. >> 3. Setup installation. >> 4. Create packages for Debian/RedHat/YouNameIt because it's independent project. >> 5. Use it in Parrot for build LLVM JIT. >> >> Comparing to: >> 1. Revert few commits. >> 2. Implement LLVM JIT. >> >> Sorry, it's way too complex from my point of view. >> >> OTOH, I don't mind to pass our "LLVM C API extensions" back to >> upstream. However Python's LLVM binding author didn't receive any >> response from LLVM for his request (which is quite similar to what I >> want to implement). >> > > Let's revert the --cxx=... removal. It was taken out because it wasn't used > by anything after we stopped bundling icu. Now that there's a use, there's a > reason for it to exist again. > > Christoph > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
_______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
