[lld] r228968 - [ELF] Insert wrap symbols into a set.

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Tue Feb 17 16:56:42 PST 2015

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>> Returning a const reference to a set is not wrong at all, and it
>>> involves less moving parts, no?
>>> The other reason why I prefer a set over range here is because I don't
>>> want to see more uses of range in LLD at this moment. I believe range is
>>> designed after N3350, which didn't make it to the standard yet. It doesn't
>>> feel great that this generic library lives under LLD. If we really need
>>> this one, we should move the file to LLVM support directory. Otherwise, I
>>> don't like to build a local rule to use range in LLD. After all other LLVM
>>> projects are not using this range.
>> FWIW, LLVM projects are using ranges pretty heavily now, and we added
>> llvm::iterator_range to LLVM's ADT library. So I'm pretty happy with
>> increased usage of ranges in LLD.
> Thanks, Chandler. Maybe we should replace all uses of lld::range with
> llvm::iterator_range? Looks like there's no reason to not do.

I'm generally happy with the direction of sinking this generic
functionality out of LLD and into LLVM. At the time it went in, LLD was
using C++11 in places that LLVM wasn't (IIRC) and that was the motivation
for keeping it in LLD. Today, that doesn't make sense.

I've not looked at LLD's generic utilities here so i can't comment on the
best way to do this or what they'll end up looking like, but I'm vaguely in
favor of the direction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150217/474e2270/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-commits mailing list