[LLVMdev] LLVM Archive Format Extension Proposal

Relph, Richard Richard.Relph at amd.com
Mon Dec 3 14:08:32 PST 2012

On Nov 21, 2012, at 4:28 PM, "Relph, Richard" <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Note that I plan to remove llvm/Bitcode/Archive once Object/Archive is
>> capable of replacing it. The llvm tools that don't write archives
>> files have already been switched over to it. Object/Archive already
>> supports MemoryBuffer as a source for the data.
> I had meant to ask in my email about the apparent duplication of Archive in Bitcode and Object libs… Good to know. Since ranlib currently uses Bitcode, that's what I've been focusing on, but I had noticed the Object/Archive.h.

    I understand and agree that having 2 Archive implementations is something that should be fixed. Do you have a rough idea about when you might do the unification?
    Also, why unify around the Object/Archive implementation instead of the Bitcode/Archive implementation? What can the Object/Archive implementation "do" that can't be done with the Bitcode implementation?
    I ask because after looking at Archive in Object and Archive in Bitcode, the Archive in Bitcode seems much better documented than the Archive in Object, and feels (at least to me at first glance) like a somewhat better model of what Archives are. And as you've already noted, Object/Archive can't do writes...


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list