[PATCH] D19333: Move coverage related code into a separate library

[Justin Bogner via llvm-commits]

Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> writes:
>> > Justin, independent of the fact that this is really not a blocker for
>> > the profile summary change (as you point out in another thread), this
>> > seems like a desirable change to separate coverage from the rest of
>> > the ProfileData. Does that make sense?
>>
>> I'm not really convinced that this is a desirable change, personally. It
>> seems like useless busywork to separate these two things, and if we are
>> going to make the claim that Coverage is independent/just a user of
>> ProfileData, why would it be nested inside the ProfileData subdirectory?
>>
>
> I am fine moving Coverage directory out too. However subdir approach is
> also used in, for instance, CodeGen/SelectionDAG, so it is not
>  unprecedented.  We can model this also like BitCode. For instance, under
> ProfileData dir, create two subdirs: Core and Coverage -- but I find that
> more work than needed.
>
>>
>> I won't block you from doing this, as having more smaller libraries
>> doesn't really hurt anything much and I guess it does solve your
>> immediate problem, but I do consider this just a hack to work around
>> whatever problems the current layout is causing you guys.
>>
>
> Making ProfileData more independent can help us longer term -- so let's go
> ahead and commit this change.  Having said that,  Easwaran will also work
> independently to improve our internal build structure so that similar
> issues may not be triggered again elsewhere in the future.

SG