[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Add -fobjc-direct-class-refs

[David Blaikie]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:36 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:17 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Schleifer <js at webkeks.org> wrote:
>>> Am 12.07.2012 um 04:21 schrieb John McCall:
>>>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.07.2012 um 02:58 schrieb John McCall:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subscripting on objects has an existing meaning in fragile runtimes:
>>>>>> it's pointer arithmetic.  Is that meaning useful?  Well, possibly not, but
>>>>>> nonetheless such code has historically been valid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As such code does not exist for ObjFW as there is not that historical
>>>>> part, I'd like to just forbid pointer arithmetics and allow subscripts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That seems totally reasonable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, then I'll add it using the way you described before.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I added a test case (please do include tests in your patches!) and
>>>> committed this as r160102.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice!
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly sure as to how these tests work. From looking at the commit,
>>> it seems it's ObjC code with comments that first specify the command to
>>> compile and then define the expected in LLVM ASM?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> For the record, I should establish a policy here and give you some fair
>>>> warning.  We're happy to keep support for ObjFW in the tree as long as
>>>> you're maintaining your runtime.  If it ever looks like it's become a dead
>>>> project, and we can't reach any maintainers for an extended period of time,
>>>> we reserve the right to strip this code out as bit-rotted.  Okay?
>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds fair. Please contact me at this e-mail address if there are any
>>> questions regarding the ObjFW support. As long as you don't remove it
>>> without contacting me, everything is fine by me :).
>>
>> Might want to put that down in the code owners documentation and/or
>> authors file if you haven't already.
>
> We don't seem to have a place to put this kind of Clang-specific developer
> "policy statement",

We already have multiple Clang subcategories mentioned here
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-owners - but yeah,
might be a bit too fine grained for that page?

> and it doesn't really belong in the LLVM repository.

Hmm? We seem to describe a variety of contribution areas in the
contributor file (though ownership can/does differs from
contribution).

> I could start a new page, or we could let the archive speak for itself.

Yep - it was just a thought if there was a place to write it
down/someone felt it should be - didn't mean to initiate/create any
extra policy/maintenance burden.

> Doug, thoughts?
>
> John.

[& sorry, John, for the reply rather than reply-all the first time]