[llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories?

David Chisnall via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 21 10:06:09 PDT 2016

On 21 Jul 2016, at 17:49, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> As a back-of-the-envelope, I suggest: llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra,
> compiler-rt, libc++, libc++abi, libunwind, test-suite.

The minimum that makes sense is llvm, though that defeats the point of a combined repo.

I don’t think that libc++ / libc++abi make sense there for several reasons:

- You very rarely need to update them in lockstep with anything else

- LLVM/Clang is useful and frequently built without libc++

- libc++ is useful and frequently built without any of the rest of LLVM

The same applies to libunwind.  If you’re building an entire toolchain then you might want to use it, but most projects don’t benefit from it and it implements a well-defined standard ABI and so doesn’t need to be updated in lockstep with anything else.

clang-tools-extra is explicitly a bunch of stuff that doesn’t belong in the main clang repo because it’s not of interest to most people doing clang work, so it’s hard to see why it would be of interest to everyone doing LLVM work.  Additionally, I believe that they’re mostly things that are built on top of APIs in clang that are supposed to be moderately stable, so shouldn’t need atomically updating with respect to clang very often.

Compiler-rt probably makes sense if clang is there, as it includes a lot of the run-time support for clang.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160721/ac9a4787/attachment.bin>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list