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

[Henning Thielemann]

Am 18.01.2014 23:43, schrieb 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.

thanks for the pointer


> 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.


I didn't want to request an overhaul or partial transition of 
llvm-base/llvm to llvm-general. For me the LLVM-C API is almost enough, 
I do not need an LLVM AST or LLVM syntax transformation. I need LLVM for 
speeding up my Haskell code, that is I need a JIT that I can invoke 
simply, quickly and (type) safely.

I only wish, that if actually all former maintainers of the llvm package 
moved to llvm-general then it would be nice to officially mark the 
package as orphaned plus you may call for a new maintainer. I have 
thought about continuing the llvm-base/llvm approach myself, but I would 
certainly refactor it a lot and then it may be better called a fork.