[haskell-llvm] llvm-general FFI dependencies

[Carter Schonwald]

ok, makes sense.


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Scott West <scott.west at inf.ethz.ch> wrote:

> 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<Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org>
>>     <mailto:Haskell-llvm at projects.**haskell.org<Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org>
>> >
>>
>>      > http://projects.haskell.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**
>> haskell-llvm<http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ______________________________**_________________
>>     Haskell-llvm mailing list
>>     Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.**org<Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org>
>>     <mailto:Haskell-llvm at projects.**haskell.org<Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org>
>> >
>>     http://projects.haskell.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**haskell-llvm<http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://projects.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-llvm/attachments/20130819/9be850cc/attachment-0001.htm>