[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D60480: [WIP] integration of pstl into libc++

[Louis Dionne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

ldionne added a comment.

In D60480#1461586 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60480#1461586>, @rodgert wrote:

> In D60480#1461555 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60480#1461555>, @jfb wrote:
>
> > In D60480#1460733 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60480#1460733>, @EricWF wrote:
> >
> > > In D60480#1460729 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60480#1460729>, @rodgert wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not sure what is up with phabricator, but it won't let me respond inline to EricWF, specifically -
> > > >
> > > > __FIRST_MOVER_ADVANTAGE
> > > >
> > > > libc++ and libstdc++ have different 'uglification' protocols. As I said to mclow early on in this process, If I'm the one that has to do the grunt work of *all* of the uglification (very much has been case, BTW), it's going to follow libstdc++ convention as much as is possible.
> > >
> > >
> > > libc++ code should follow libc++ conventions.
> >
> >
> > Just to be clear: PSTL is neither libc++ nor libstdc++. Louis kinda said so above, and Tom is making that point too, but I want to reiterate it. It's overall a silly bikeshedding point, but it's critical to keep everyone happy. PSTL isn't more "ours" than "theirs" (or rather, it's "ours" in that we're all in the same C++ team). This point was critical in getting PSTL to be a shared resource in the first place, and I don't want to walk back this commitment.
> >
> > As Tom mentions above, we've talked about having tooling to massage PSTL to libc++'s and libstdc++'s liking on integration. Without volunteers to write said tooling, we should just accept slight ache when integrating PSTL, as we see here when integrating it into libc++.
>
>
> The process of applying this kind of change is very error prone. I still have a patch coming that fixes a few cases I missed. That's the bigger argument IMO for tooling than the specific format.


I think I'm missing yours and JF's point. I don't understand why you need any tooling. All I'm saying is that PSTL being under the LLVM umbrella should conform to the usual LLVM code style, which used single underscore + capitals for macros unless I'm mistaken. libstdc++ and libc++ wouldn't apply any code transformation on the PSTL sources after that, it would just use it as a separate library and there wouldn't be very many PSTL macros used inside libstdc++/libc++. Only those macros that are part of the PSTL's interface, and yes, those would be using the PSTL's naming convention.

IOW, this is something that we simply missed in the initial check-in.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D60480/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D60480