[PATCH] D26042: Consolidate BumpPtrAllocators.

Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Oct 28 13:32:19 PDT 2016

On 28 October 2016 at 16:16, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I’m fine with keeping our disagreement about the lld “style”.
>>>> Just keep in mind that this is not a direction that is “encouraging everyone” to be involved or care about lld.
>>> That is fine. The objective of the new ELF linker is simple: be the
>>> best ELF linker out there. The objective is not to have it be a
>>> generic reusable framework os to maximize the number of people
>>> involved in it.
>> Not being reusable just does not line up with what *I* would expect from a LLVM project in general. We wouldn’t have this discussion if you had started a separate linker project on GitHub.
> To be clear: I’m just expressing a personal view and expectation here: there is nothing wrong with building an awesome monolithic linker that solves real problem otherwise (which is what I believe you are doing with lld).

Yes, that is exactly what we are doing.

And for any design (why the quotes?) decision there are those that
disagree. Now, given that the people actually writing the linker
agreed on the design, I don't see why they would not follow it because
someone else doesn't like it.

Note that is perfectly symmetrical. If you start working on a library
with a design I disagree with, the design might prevent me from
contributing to it. That is fine. I would not try to say that *you*
should code something in the way *I* think is right. Please don't try
to force your design preference unto the people writing the ELF lld.


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list