[LLVMdev] RFC: Does having a separate IPA library still make sense?

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Tue Jan 7 10:22:33 PST 2014

Thanks! Will make it so.
On Jan 7, 2014 10:07 AM, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> On Jan 7, 2014, at 2:09 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> > We have quite a few analyses that are in the Analysis library despite
> being module passes, and not very many interprocedural analysis anyways.
> Should we fold them together?
> >
> > If we do fold them together, should the source code still live in a
> subdirectory?
> >
> > If the code still lives in a subdirectory (regardless of the library
> separation) would it make sense to put the header files in a subdirectory
> as well? It would make it easier for my mental organization of things, but
> I don't care strongly either way.
> I’m in favor of having only a single analysis library.  The only thing to
> watch out for is cyclic dependencies in the library graph.
> -Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140107/435a2c28/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list