[LLVMdev] RFC: A Great Renaming of Things (or: Let's Repaint ALL the Bikesheds!)

[Jim Grosbach]

Catching up on post-holiday emails. I may have comments on the more general stuff later, but wanted to respond to this bit more quickly.

On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> s/ExecutionEngine/EE/ (or something like buzzword!)
> 
> I don't really know the best bikeshed color here. Jim?
> 
> My lame idea would be:
> 
> ExecutionEngine -> JIT
> ExecutionEngine -> JIT/Legacy
> ExecutionEngine/MCJIT -> JIT/MC
> ExecutionEngine/OProfileJIT -> JIT/OProfile
> ExecutionEngine/IntelJITEvenst -> JIT/IntelJITEvents
> ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld -> JIT/RuntimeDyld
> 
So long as we have the interpreter, we should keep the ExecutionEngine abstraction around. That said, I'd personally like to kill the interpreter…

Eventually, lots of this can (and should) be simplified and flattened as the obsolete bits get deleted (legacy JIT and hopefully the interpreter). That's a re-org for another day, though, and is more than just moving files around.

On the way to that, though, I really like your idea of making the legacy status of the old JIT explicit in the structure. I would suggest the fairly minor restructuring of:

ExecutionEngine/LegacyJIT
ExecutionEngine/MCJIT
ExecutionEngine/OProfile
ExecutionEngine/IntelJITEvents
ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld

When the old JIT goes away, we "rm -rf LegacyJIT". When the interpreter goes away (assuming that's something we go forward with), the whole ExecutionEngine structure becomes "JIT" and everything flattens.

Bottom line for me is that I don't mind the naming of most of this stuff as-is, but I very much would like to see some simplification, renaming and restructuring as the MCJIT pushes forwards and old broken stuff gets nuked.

> (maybe RuntimeDyld -> DynamicLoader ? Too direct?)

I like the current name for RuntimeDyld. That's some of my Darwin bias showing, though.

> But not sure this is really an accurate model for the logical layering
> of these libraries?

There's a logical layering for these libraries? ;) Seriously speaking, it's pretty close. Close enough that I'm not too worried about it.

-Jim