Preliminary LLVM 19 support #557
Conversation
|
I used a simple JIT example from README and it works. Looking good already but still need unit tests |
|
@TheDan64 Should the feature base name be renamed as llvm19-1? Looks like LLVM skipped 19.0 entirely and released 19.1 as the first one |
|
Nah, it's fine and consistent as is 🤔 |
|
That is such a weird choice... |
|
Yeah, I guess 19-1 makes more sense |
|
@TheDan64 okay, I also tested LLVM 19 integration with https://github.com/jamesmth/llvm-plugin-rs, so the basic examples provided in their repo do compile pretty well, so I will rename the feature from Keep in mind the new features in LLVM 19 aren't added yet, and so a follow up contribution for completing that puzzle would be a huge welcome. |
I believe LLVM skipped 18.0 as well, and inkwell uses 18-0 for the major feature number, so it would be more consistent to use 19-0 now as well. |
No the problem is LLVM directly skipped 19.0 and even llvm-sys have to use 191 as the prefix number, so it is the matter of consistency in the library or in the actual LLVM naming scheme |
|
I have been able to integrate stevefan1999-personal@0c1e5dd into my project that relies on Inkwell, but stevefan1999-personal@87b7049 creates a number of compilation errors about undefined feature version For the version with the successful integration everything seems to be working swimmingly so far, with no regressions found by the test suite. |
That is strange, let me revert the actions changes tonight |
Description
Adds preliminary LLVM 19 support so that https://github.com/jamesmth/llvm-plugin-rs can build plugin with it. No new features have been added so far.
Related Issue
#530
How This Has Been Tested
Not yet
Option<Breaking Changes>
Checklist