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

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Wed Nov 28 01:34:30 PST 2012

Lacking any dissenting opinions, I wanted to give a heads up to folks:

I plan to do the two major renamings I mentioned above this weekend.
I'll do it over the weekend to try to minimize the number of patches
that folks have outstanding touching files in those trees.

I'll respond later this week with more details to help sort out any
last questions of naming. It looks like the only real bikeshed left is
the name for the CodeGen classes, and I'll mostly defer to John's
whims there as he has to read and touch that code more than most
others. =]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> Hello LLVM & Clang hackers!
> Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great
> Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase.
> First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make:
> 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... -> llvm/lib/IR/...
> I've discussed potential names for the VMCore (or LLVMCore) library
> with lots of folks, and the best idea anyone has was Chris's initial
> suggestion: IR. So I'd like to minimize the bikeshed discussions on
> this one. ;]
> There is one interesting question here: should we move
> include/llvm/*.h to include/llvm/IR/*.h to match other libraries?
> 2) clang/lib/CodeGen/... -> clang/lib/IRGen/...
> I think this name is so painfully obvious that everyone will be happy
> with this change...
> ... because it's the biggest change. It will involve a great deal of
> renaming (CodeGenFunction for example) in order to keep things
> consistent.
> Are there other names that are poor choices and are lingering in our
> codebases? I'm willing to sign up to do more renames while I'm at
> this, so this is a chance to get someone else to do the heavy lifting.
> =]

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list