[haskell-llvm] llvm-general FFI dependencies

[Scott West]

Hello Carter,

There are two main reasons:

1) It reduces the maintenance burden for all projects. With a single FFI 
as the base of all the LLVM packages it gives it more testing/users. 
This in the end will increase the quality of the FFI binding which 
benefits everyone.

2) It's also more future-proof: an independent FFI package makes it 
easier for any future independent experimentation.

Regards,
Scott

On 8/19/2013 10:27 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> whats the motivation for either choice over the current approach?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dr. Benjamin S. Scarlet
> <roll10 at greynode.net <mailto:roll10 at greynode.net>> wrote:
>
>     Scott,
>
>     You asked on IRC about putting the Transforms into the -ffi package. I
>     replied that yes, that option would be weird.
>
>     This option of putting them into the -pure package is also weird.
>
>     I'm torn between the two. Neither one is unacceptable; neither is
>     particularly nice.
>
>     I'm pondering the two, and would welcome arguments in either direction.
>
>     -Ben Scarlet
>
>     On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 09:33 +0200, Scott West wrote:
>      > Hello all,
>      >
>      > I've been looking a bit in the past week at the llvm-general bindings
>      > trying to figure out how to tweeze the FFI part away from the rest.
>      >
>      > As Ben Scarlet indicated, the dependency of the FFI part is
>     largely on
>      > llvm-general-pure. However, there are two other small dependencies on
>      > the llvm-general:
>      >
>      > - LLVM.General.Internal.InstructionDefs and
>      > - LLVM.General.Transforms
>      >
>      > It seems that the dependency on Internal.InstructionDefs is
>     mostly just
>      > code-sharing, and there is probably a not too difficult solution
>     there.
>      >
>      > For Transforms however, I'm less sure what to do.
>      >
>      > I think a better option is to move it into llvm-general-pure, as it
>      > certainly pure, although it's not really part of the AST (which
>      > llvm-general-pure mostly contains). This would make it that
>      > llvm-general-pure is a dependency for all llvm packages in the
>     future,
>      > allowing us to share a single FFI implementation (the currently
>     hidden
>      > llvm-general one).
>      >
>      > Thoughts?
>      >
>      > Thanks!
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      > Scott
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Haskell-llvm mailing list
>      > Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org
>     <mailto:Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org>
>      > http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Haskell-llvm mailing list
>     Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org
>     <mailto:Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org>
>     http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm
>
>