[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: A Great Renaming of Things (or: Let's Repaint ALL the Bikesheds!)

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Thu Nov 22 08:15:15 PST 2012

On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:00 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

>>>> There is one interesting question here: should we move
>>>> include/llvm/*.h to include/llvm/IR/*.h to match other libraries?
>>> IMHO, we may keep include/llvm/*. They should be essential interfaces.
>> I dislike the inconsistency of the include tree and the lib tree. When
>> that inconsistency is just collapsing an entire directory to a single
>> file, it seems fine and even good when the names align. But this seems
>> somewhat less principled than that.
>> Essentially, consistency is a strong argument. I'm looking for strong
>> arguments for keeping them where they are to counter that.
> Right.  IR is central to the compiler backend, but clients of clang or higher level things (who do use a lot of stuff from llvm/* also, directly) don't necessarily use IR).

Also, this is a mistake that I got right with clang: note that clangs "core" API is in include/clang/AST, not in include/clang.


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list