<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Ben Langmuir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blangmuir@apple.com" target="_blank">blangmuir@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div class="im"><div>On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Manuel Klimek <<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com" target="_blank">klimek@google.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Ben Langmuir <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:blangmuir@apple.com" target="_blank">blangmuir@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
On Feb 7, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Manuel Klimek <<a href="mailto:klimek@google.com" target="_blank">klimek@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I'd like to consider it design-wise at least on a straw-man level (to be shot down ;)<br>
><br>
> If we want to support this in the future, it might affect both the ownership and the API design question. For example, one design straw-man would be to have interfaces for FileSystem, Directory and File, where FileSystem can give you Directory's and those again can give you Files. That would trivially support using directory-entry based OS interfaces where they are available, but would mean more code overhead per FileSystem implementation.<br>
><br>
> A different approach would be to use descriptors for files and directories, and have only a single FileSystem interface that can handle the instances. Seems slightly less "nice" from a user point of view, but potentially simpler and less overhead for the implementation.<br>
><br>
> From the other mails in this thread it sounds to me more like you want to basically punt on those questions and just provide the interface and access methods to get buffers for files. That might also be fine for now, but I'd prefer if it is a conscious decision rather than an accidental one :)<br>
<br>
</div>What filesystem modifications would you consider to be ‘unrelated’ in a compilation? E.g. what if clang is invoked from the ‘real location’ src-head, but there are command-line options that refer to absolute paths in ‘src’. Would we try to recover? I think I would need a concrete idea of what the desired model of consistency is before I could be convinced this is a solvable problem.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The proposed model is basically implemented today - as long as all paths you give to the compiler are relative subpaths of the cwd, you'll stay relative to the same directory inode.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Is this because FileManager caches the DirectoryEntries along the way?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Nope, it's because clang just stays in one directory, and that basically keeps all relative file operations inside the original working directory.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>Our main problem today is when we think about multi-threading the compilation (mainly for tooling - I want to be able to parse multiple TUs from within one program). There, just chdir'ing into the right directory for the TU doesn't work any more.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I’m still not sure I get what you’re trying to solve. Is it to ensure that multiple threads have a consistent picture of the file system, similarly to if they all shared a FileManager, even in the presence of a chdir?</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im">
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>Which brings me to a different question: multi-threading; since your main use case is remapping on the lowest level, do you think you'll want different mappings per TU? </div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div></div><div>I don’t have a good answer to this yet. My plan was to start by having the compiler instance own the virtual file system, and see where that got us.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>I like the plan (similar to what I'd intuitively have done).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Now, specifically about the straw-man proposal: one of the things I like about reusing the llvm::sys::fs interface is that it makes the change very small for users. Both of these options seem to require giving that up for a handle-based API where clients need to think about a new object(s) for any file operations they want to use.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just for the record: I'm totally in favor of modeling stuff after the llvm:sys::fs interface - that was the same plan we came up with back in the day (but always were able to work around spending time on).</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Cool - I’ll probably post an initial patch based on this approach in the near future as a first step.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Great! Looking forward to it :)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I wonder if handling the clang-invocation-location issue can be solved by virtually mapping `pwd` to `pwd -P` right at the beginning of the compilation? That would allow path-based operations to still work. However, that probably doesn’t scale if you want to treat *every* path that the compiler looks up this way, since you would explode the number of mappings… So it really depends on what our model of consistency is.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I tried to explain above. Does that make sense?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>/Manuel</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> /Manuel<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>