[haskell-llvm] llvm-base vs. llvm-general

[Carter Schonwald]

Hey Henning,

Nathan has examples of an "llvm" style, albeit modernized / cleaned variant
on top of llvm-general https://github.com/alphaHeavy/llvm-general-typed,
though some contributions are probably still needed to bring it to full
parity.

The fact of the matter is that llvm-base is tightly wedded to the llvm c
API, and doesn't have a clear extensibility story to handle features
supported that are only exposed via the c++ api


That said, you do raise a  good point, that for support reasons, updating
the old style llvm api to use llvm general rather than llvm base is worth
considering. I may spend some time swapping llvm-general in for llvm-base
and seeing how that works out.




On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

> https://github.com/bos/llvm/README.md says:
>
> "please note that the haskell LLVM community has shifted to llvm-general,
> which can be found on hackage and github."
>
> I find this statement bold, because I have not moved to llvm-general. Do
> you want to say that llvm-base+llvm package are not maintained anymore? If
> yes, then how about looking for new maintainers?
>
> Btw. I am looking for small examples that allow me judge whether it is
> worth moving to llvm-general. The llvm package has such examples.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-llvm mailing list
> Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org
> 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/20140118/e8ec2f2c/attachment.htm>