[haskell-llvm] llvm-general FFI dependencies

[Dr. Benjamin S. Scarlet]

As Scott said, the point is to allow the older llvm package to use the
new FFI code.

-Ben Scarlet

On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 16:27 -0400, 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> 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
>         >
>         http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm
>         
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Haskell-llvm mailing list
>         Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org
>         http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm
>         
> 
>