<div dir="ltr">Here is my limited perspective on this topic:<div><br></div><div>1. I would like to see some of the code in LLVM's ADT and Support libraries available for reuse in other projects. This also has some potential for being useful to Clang -- one could imagine a world where Clang directly linked the ADT & Support libraries, but used the compiler itself via a clear dynamic-library vended API (which would be unrealistic to expect the ADT & Support libraries would ever want to provide).</div><div><br></div><div>2. I agree with Chandler in that I don't see a good need to try hard to factor out code from the Support library that can just be conditional disabled or would be unused by normal .a link semantics. For example, whether or not the regex or YAML code belongs in Support doesn't seem worth worrying too much about, because they are very isolated, don't introduce extra dependencies, and won't be linked by projects that don't use them.</div><div><br></div><div>3. I also see a good argument for having a ToolsSupport library, as a place for all of the very-LLVM(the compiler) specific functionality that would have no place in a shared Support library (for any number of reasons: lack of generality, invasiveness, or because they add substantial other dependencies).</div><div><br></div><div> - Daniel</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Pete Cooper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peter_cooper@apple.com" target="_blank">peter_cooper@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 6, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Chris Bieneman <<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank">beanz@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word">I think for the main goal of cleaning up the Mac-specific hack, a CrashRecovery library would work equally well. Juergen is more familiar with the WebKit side of things, so he may be aware of something I’m not thinking of.<div><br></div><div>Chandler, does splitting out a CrashRecovery library instead seem sane?</div></div></div></blockquote></span>FWIW, I prefer a ToolsSupport library. It gives us the opportunity to put other tools specific things in there if we find them. I can’t, for example, think of the dylib needing YAML right now, although I could be wrong.</div><div><br></div><div>At least if we made it ToolsSupport then we wouldn’t have come back in a few months/year and ask to rename it from CrashRecovery.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Pete<br></font></span><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Other than code organization and naming, the general idea of splitting out a CrashRecovery library would be the same as the other patches I sent out. I was thinking of taking the approach of moving one symbol, fixing everything, then repeat.</div><div><br></div><div>Does that seem like the right approach?</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><div><div><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 6, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Reid Kleckner <<a href="mailto:rnk@google.com" target="_blank">rnk@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Chris Bieneman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank">beanz@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>The other thought I had which motivated this solution was that if we could strip all the functionality that is only really used by tools out into a separate library it would offer cleaner organization of code. Support seems to often get used as a dumping ground for stuff that just doesn’t fit anywhere else.</div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Based on your feedback and Chandler’s maybe this just isn’t the right separation. I can look into a solution to address our hackiness without creating a separate library.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What other stuff do you think belongs in ToolsSupport that doesn't belong in Support? Looking back at the initial email, you have command line parsing and ToolOutputFile.</div><div><br></div><div>We could split out command line parsing, but it doesn't seem worth it, given that we're still carrying regex support, Unicode conversion, dynamic library support, and other things that probably aren't absolutely necessary.</div><div><br></div><div>What about splitting out a CrashRecovery library instead? That seems a lot more targeted and meaningful. We'd probably put ToolOutputFile.cpp in there.</div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></span><span class="">_______________________________________________<br>LLVM Developers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>