LLVM bindings, scope of llvm-c

Project Infrastructure LLVM Dev List Archives
1

From: OvermindDL1 <overminddl1@gmail.com>

There could just as easily be language bindings between C++ and
Python, he chose the C bindings probably just because they were
easier, but they are most certainly not required. I know that is the
case in a few other scripting languages as well.

He ( I :slight_smile: ) chose llvm-c based on the thread starting here:

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-March/013318.html

The current llvm-c bindings are not sufficient for llvm-py, and it
"adds" more wrapper functions (intrinsics, passes etc):
http://code.google.com/p/llvm-py/source/browse/trunk/llvm/extra.h

Regards,
-Mahadevan.

PS: Please do raise bugs/requests for llvm-py at:
http://code.google.com/p/llvm-py/issues/list

2

That was actually a continuation of a thread of the same name earlier
that month, one that I was part of. I expressed a desire that it
should be based on C++ and not the C bindings

If it would have been a GSoC project I would have taken up the C++
bindings (I have certainly done enough python modules out of C++ code
that I could have breezed through it pretty well, the hardest part
would have actually been just figuring out what needed to be bound and
what did not since I still do not know LLVM well enough to determine
what people should use and what they should not, hence what is
internal and not part of the actual API), but without such motivation
I had other things I needed to be doing