[haskell-llvm] Maintainership still ongoing?

[Scott West]

Hi Carter,
> Llvm-general has a better ffi story than llvm/llvm-base.  And provides a
> nice way to map  back and forth between the Haskell AST and the llvm c++
> in memory AST.  It's really a markedly better substrate. And there's no
> cruft in its build scripting!

Well, I'd be happy to have a better FFI story in llvm-base! Is there 
something fundamental in the FFI bindings that makes it so the 
improvements cannot be shifted to llvm-base under the same/similar 
interface?

It seems that the FFI isn't even exposed in llvm-general, what if that's 
all I want to use?

I think you're going to face a hard sell telling people to switch to 
llvm-general; it's not exactly a replacement for llvm-base.

I think the optimal solution would be to find a way for llvm-general to 
use llvm-base for its FFI (not the AST part of course). I'd be willing 
to help integrate the improvements on the FFI side into llvm-base, if 
they are portable. If we can find a way to cooperate here I think it 
will benefit everyone in the long run :).

Thanks for chiming in on the llvm-general side!

Regards,
Scott