On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Pulling in bits of LLVM itself into sparse, to make older versions work, > seems like a mess of work and maintenance without a driving need. Just > note that 3.0 is required, and things will sort themselves out in time. I hate big mess too. However I have a strong motivation to support the released version of LLVM (if it does make a big mess in the process). I am not asking to back port the LLVM 3.0 code to the 2.x series. That is wrong. If 2.x does not have not provide this features, I am fine with not supporting 2.x LLVM and require 3.0 only. However if it is just C vs C++ API, I don't mind accessing the C++ API in 2.x. I believe we need to have a mechanism to use the LLVM C++ API any way. The LLVM C API is only a subset of the C++ API. I draw the line at accessing the API vs backing the LLVM code. In the long way, sparse will have to deal with different version of LLVM any way. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
