[cfe-dev] Heads up, renaming attempt #2!

[Richard Smith]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, last time I tried, I needed a bit more tooling in place to do the
>> renaming sanely. =] That's taken care of, and so I'm hoping to do the
>> renaming from 'clang/lib/CodeGen/...' to 'clang/lib/IRGen/...' over the
>> holidays (hopefully minimal patches outstanding).
>>
>> I'm also going to try to systematically clean up the naming of files and
>> classes.
>>
>> The current leading strategy for files:
>>
>>   lib/CodeGen/CGCall.cpp -> lib/IRGen/Call.cpp
>>   lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp -> lib/IRGen/Function.cpp
>>
>> The current leading strategy for classes:
>>
>>   clang::CGFoo -> clang::irgen::Foo
>>   clang::CodeGenBar -> clang::irgen::Bar
>>
>> I'm asking Doug and John to paint this bikeshed so that we don't just go
>> around in circles endlessly.
>>
>>
>> I really like having a prefix on file names so that they aren't
>> immediately confusable — visually, by IDEs, by C-x b, etc. — with files from
>> other parts of the compiler.  For example, I think it would be a real loss
>> if there were three Decl.cpp files in clang: one in AST, one in Sema, and
>> one in IRGen.
>
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>>
>> For lack of a better idea, let's go with replacing everything that's
>> "CodeGen" with "IRGen" and "CG" with "IR".  "IR" has a pretty unambiguous
>> meaning in the context of LLVM.
>
>
> Can we pick just one prefix and have everything use that? Seems a great
> opportunity to no longer wonder "is it CGFunction or CodeGenFunction?"
>
> Should the prefix apply just to the files? 'clang::irgen::IRGenFunction'
> seems needlessly redundant, but if that's your preferred shade of bikeshed,
> I will make it so. ;]

I find having the prefix in the identifier to be very useful for
grepability of the code.