Zack wrote: > On Sunday 26 July 2009 20:35:53 Jose Fonseca wrote: > > I've forked softpipe and commited the LLVM based pixel packing/unpacking > > code I was working on, into a new branch, gallium-llvmpipe. > > Neat. Any reason for using the C bindings? That seems like a bad idea to me.
The same reasons I outlined before: - LLVM is in C++ and our drivers and auxiliary modules are in C, so using the C bindings only seems natural. - they look perfectly suficient for code generation and execution, Also surprisingly they are actually quite easy to use. I don't anticipate the need to write special optimization passes or new backends for this driver. And if we do, they can be written as an independent module in C++ (and perhaps moved upstream). Note that the C++ code can mix both LLVM C ++ interfaces and C bindings seamlessly, so there is no impediment against reusing some of these functions by some other C++ module in the future if needed. Anyway, there is a 1:1 match between C and C++ bindings, and it is quite easy to translate between them with mere searches and replaces, so we can revert to C++ bindings quite easily (*) if we found C bindings unpractical. I just want to give a serious shot at using them and see how far as we can go. It seems worth it at least for me. Jose (*) I actually already tried the opposite, as most of the new code I checked was drafted in C++, and it was really that easy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
