[PATCH] Some infrastructure work for virtual file system

Rafael EspĂ­ndola rafael.espindola at gmail.com
Wed Feb 12 14:06:42 PST 2014


On 11 February 2014 05:16, 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?

Not until we have a concrete need for one. In another tool.

> - seems to me like there is only one AbstractFileSystem that should be owned
> pretty top-level, so why use an IntrusiveRefCntPtr?
> - why not make all the function virtual? Doesn't seem to have real
> downsides, and would immediately enable fully virtualized file system
> implementations (seems fine to have default implementations for all the
> functions); if the plan is to have the functions state now to provide an
> easier migration path, I think it'd make sense to add a comment describing
> the end-state...

I disagree with having unused features. We should really have only the
functions that are needed and make virtual only the ones that actually
need to be overridden.

Cheers,
Rafael



More information about the cfe-commits mailing list