[cfe-dev] Heads up, renaming attempt #2!

[Chandler Carruth]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 21, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, last time I tried, I needed a bit more tooling in place to do the
> >> renaming sanely. =] That's taken care of, and so I'm hoping to do the
> >> renaming from 'clang/lib/CodeGen/...' to 'clang/lib/IRGen/...' over the
> >> holidays (hopefully minimal patches outstanding).
> >>
> >> I'm also going to try to systematically clean up the naming of files and
> >> classes.
> >>
> >> The current leading strategy for files:
> >>
> >>   lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp -> lib/IRGen/Call.cpp
> >>   lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp -> lib/IRGen/Function.cpp
> >>
> >> The current leading strategy for classes:
> >>
> >>   clang::CGFoo -> clang::irgen::Foo
> >>   clang::CodeGenBar -> clang::irgen::Bar
> >>
> >> I'm asking Doug and John to paint this bikeshed so that we don't just go
> >> around in circles endlessly.
> >>
> >>
> >> I really like having a prefix on file names so that they aren't
> >> immediately confusable — visually, by IDEs, by C-x b, etc. — with files
> from
> >> other parts of the compiler.  For example, I think it would be a real
> loss
> >> if there were three Decl.cpp files in clang: one in AST, one in Sema,
> and
> >> one in IRGen.
> >
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> For lack of a better idea, let's go with replacing everything that's
> >> "CodeGen" with "IRGen" and "CG" with "IR".  "IR" has a pretty
> unambiguous
> >> meaning in the context of LLVM.
> >
> >
> > Can we pick just one prefix and have everything use that? Seems a great
> > opportunity to no longer wonder "is it CGFunction or CodeGenFunction?"
> >
> > Should the prefix apply just to the files? 'clang::irgen::IRGenFunction'
> > seems needlessly redundant, but if that's your preferred shade of
> bikeshed,
> > I will make it so. ;]
>
> I find having the prefix in the identifier to be very useful for
> grepability of the code.
>

I actually agree, but then why bother with the namespace? I could get rid
of that instead as the unnecessary disambiguation....

But anyways, I don't really care, I just don't understand. =] Carrying on
with the plan with John's bikeshed color.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20121221/333a382a/attachment.html>