[LLVMdev] To APR Or Not To APR. That is the question.

[Chris Lattner]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, John Criswell wrote:
> Were there any other reasons to not consider boost?  I'm not suggesting
> we use it; I'm just curious.

The main reason we got rid of boost is it's configuration system which
looks at particular compilers and versions.  This was a pain to maintain
(it needed to be hacked every time a new gcc came out).  Also, boost
provides a ton of stuff we don't need, and does not provide a ton of stuff
we do need.  *shrug*

> However, I don't really like the idea of having two facilities in LLVM
> to do the same thing (namely, platform abstraction).  If APR lives up to
> its goal, then we should eventually be able to use it as *the* platform
> abstraction library, in which case, I think it should go into the source
> tree so that people don't have to install it in order to install LLVM.

Again, as mentioned, APR does not provide everything we need, so I don't
know if there is a way around this.

-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.org/
http://nondot.org/sabre/