<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Yeahhhh... How much could have changed in a year though?!?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> ::thinks back to Lattner's keynote, blood drains from face::</span></div><div><br></div><div>Regardless, the path stuff is certainly low hanging fruit and feels like a real world application of the refactoring language that would make a great tutorial/example. The get -> front stuff was great for a demo/talk, but maybe path API changes could better demonstrate the capabilities which your tool exercises. I'm willing to spend the effort to make the example. :-D</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for pointing me to the correct list. </div><div><br></div><div>Joe</div><div><br>On Nov 19, 2011, at 5:37 PM, "Chandler Carruth" <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>(cfe-dev is probably the more appropriate mailing list)<br>(bcc:llvmdev in the hope of reducing their spam)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Joe Abbey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jabbey@arxan.com">jabbey@arxan.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Our product is currently integrated with LLVM 2.8 (I know), and it sounded like many others at the conference were too. It'd be really cool to use the clang auto refactoring language to upgrade from Path V1 to V2 for instance.<br>
<br>
The sooner it can get open sourced the better.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep, we're working on it. =]</div><div><br></div><div>That said, the 2.8 -> 3.0 move is going to require a lot more than an API upgrade for path...</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>