Hi, On 2019-10-28 23:58:11 -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote: > > Cool! I'll probably merge that into my patch (with attribution of > > course). > > > > I wonder if it'd nicer to not have separate C variables for all of > > these, and instead look them up on-demand from the module loaded in > > llvm_create_types(). Not sure. > > Great! It is much nicer indeed. Attached version 2 with your suggested > changes. > (v2-0001-Rely-on-llvmjit_types-for-building-EvalFunc-calls.patch) > Used the same testing method as above.
I've comitted a (somewhat evolved) version of this patch. I think it really improves the code! My changes largely were to get rid of the LLVMGetNamedFunction() added to each opcode implementation, to also convert the ExecEval* functions we were calling directly, to remove the other functions in llvmjit.h, and finally to rebase it onto master, from the patch series in this thread. I do wonder about adding a variadic wrapper like the one introduced here more widely, seems like it could simplify a number of places. If we then redirected all function calls through a common wrapper, for LLVMBuildCall, that also validated parameter count (and perhaps types), I think it'd be easier to develop... Thanks! Andres
