A patch to move codegen includes into public include

[Sean Silva]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:24 PM, DeadMG <wolfeinstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It'd be one thing to not expose the implementation details if there was a
>> public API ready to go that offered the needed functionality; but there
>> isn't. Exposing your implementation for re-use with well-known consequences
>> is better than other people not being able to re-use it at all.
>
>
> I don't think this line of logic holds.
>
>
> I'm really not sure why the first step isn't to *design* a reasonable
> public API. Throwing header files at the wall and seeing what sticks will
> not result in an API we can maintain and support going forward.
>

Does any part of LLVM actually *design* a public API (besides the C stuff),
rather than having the public API be just the one used by clients within
LLVM? Actually, I feel like there would be pushback for trying to do that.


-- Sean Silva


>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140825/cc1b0b98/attachment.html>