[PATCH] Some infrastructure work for virtual file system

Manuel Klimek klimek at google.com
Tue Feb 11 10:38:09 PST 2014


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:16 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Very cool. A few high level questions:
>> - shouldn't the virtual file system go into llvm, not clang?
>>
>>
>> I’m fine with putting this in llvm/Support instead of clang/Basic, but
>> we’ll need to check with llvm-dev and the libsupport code owner.  If you
>> feel strongly about this I’ll send something to Chandler and llvm-dev.
>>
>
> So, one point: code owners don't have a "yes" or "no" to say to something.
> We just are responsible for finding a code reviewer if one doesn't show up
> to review a patch.
>
> That said, my suggestion is actually to get a good abstraction that you
> think *could* move productively to the LLVM support library but is easier
> to iterate on in clang/Basic. When you think it's looking good, maybe send
> it then?
>
> I just don't want to slow down the reviews with questions like -- how
> would LLD use this? How would it interact with X, Y, and Z use case that
> you don't (currently) have?
>
>
> This is a really good point.  I think you’re right and the way forward is
> to work on this in clang and look at moving it to llvm later.  Does that
> sound reasonable to you Manuel?
>

All right, sounds like a plan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140211/7b9e64b4/attachment.html>


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list