Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > On Friday, 22 March 2013 at 17:16:26 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote: > >Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > >>On Friday, 22 March 2013 at 08:34:11 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote: > >>>Updated documentation > >>>http://jkm.github.com/d-programming-language.org/deimos.html > >> > >>NIice, but conforming to the following would create too much > >>work > >>for me: > >> > >>"For each file a proper module declaration has to be provided" > >> > >>Since files in llvm-c appear and dissappear across different > >>LLVM > >>versions, you would eventually have to keep files around that > >>are > >>many LLVM versions old. > > > >Really. I thought the C API was expected to be more stable. > >Also it's not yet clear how to manage multiple versions of the > >same > >library in Deimos. But your feedback helps sharpening which issues > >should be addressed by Deimos. Thanks. > > Afaict in the rang from 3.1 to 3.3svn it has happened two times: > - The "Enhanced Disassembly" header exists in 3.2, but has vanished > in the trunk. > - The "Linker" header has been added in 3.2 and it is also an > example of the short files. It contains only a single function > "LLVMLinkModules" and a single enum for one of the that function's > parameters.
I see. I need to think about to handle the different versions. > >Assuming I can spend some time on deimos-llvm would you switch? I > >mean I > >have 3.1. Adding 3.2 is possible. But I would need you to use it > >and > >check that it works for your higher level API. > > I could add support for it via a version flag. E.g. set > -version=DEIMOS_LLVM or something similar. That way someone using > llvm-d can choose to either use the included C bindings or use your > deimos compatible ones. My only concern would be that the LLVM C > function signatures would have to be translated in the same, or at > least a compatible way in both my C bindings and the deimos ones, so > using either of them would just be a matter of which import > statement to use. > Since I've translated them pretty much strictly according to the > "interfacing with c" guideline that's probably the case already, but > I'd have to try it out first. I would like that. Probably the signatures are already the same. There is not much freedom when translating them. Jens