Dan Kolsoi

I suppose I just meant I haven't had time to add tests to verify they work properly or as expected as a wrapper. Also, I think `BasicValue`s are far more...

@sejr Thanks! I'd like to wait until development has started on v0.2.0, because the API is still in flux and will likely change quite a bit up until that point....

Working with heterogeneous collections is a pain in rust.. We could also provide a macro which simplifies the process for the user. (We may even want this earlier than `0.3.0`)...

Proc macros are probably fine; I don't expect to get to this issue before Macros 2.0 lands in stable(it seems pretty close: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38356), but who knows.

Yep, I agree with @6A's assessment. There are some things due to LLVM's nature that will just be too difficult to wrap and should either remain unsafe or safe with...

Thank you @nicokoch for bringing it up!

@6A if you can get a concrete example of this segfault, feel free to open a separate issue. I think that's the best way to track them. Maybe I will...

Revisited this today and I'm not sure what can be done here... Maybe if we can encode pointer lengths into the type system, it could be smart enough to validate...

Adding a support module is a good idea. I already started a couple supporty methods in lib.rs (even though they don't come from llvm_sys' support.rs), so those should probably get...

Other support functions requiring callbacks and/or void pointers: - [ ] LLVMAddSymbol: - [ ] LLVMSearchForAddressOfSymbol: - [x] LLVMLoadLibraryPermanently: 355a238ab28078807eca7d46a630e6b4e666c2f5 - [ ] LLVMParseCommandLineOptions: - [x] LLVMInstallFatalErrorHandler: f9902c600e7e0774351b60e364d97ffa7f24bc51 - [...