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

[Henning Thielemann]

Am 19.01.2014 00:35, schrieb Carter Schonwald:

> henning, I understand your stance, what i'm saying is I am happy to
> evaluate porting the llvm api to sit on top of llvm-general. If it was
> api compatible, would that be a satisfactory type safebackend?

Currently I don't use 'llvm' as is, but 'llvm-tf' which is 'llvm' ported 
to type families. I like 'llvm-base' as it is, except the fragile 
configure procedure. But the configure procedure of llvm-general also 
looks complicated. For me the best option is to keep llvm-base going.