A patch to move codegen includes into public include

[Chandler Carruth]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:24 PM, DeadMG <wolfeinstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> It'd be one thing to not expose the implementation details if there was a
> public API ready to go that offered the needed functionality; but there
> isn't. Exposing your implementation for re-use with well-known consequences
> is better than other people not being able to re-use it at all.


I don't think this line of logic holds.


I'm really not sure why the first step isn't to *design* a reasonable
public API. Throwing header files at the wall and seeing what sticks will
not result in an API we can maintain and support going forward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140825/42ddac60/attachment.html>