[LLVMdev] To APR Or Not To APR. That is the question.

[Reid Spencer]

On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 16:28, Misha Brukman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:21:22PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > Downside:
> >       * Makes LLVM dependent on a third party library
> >       * Makes LLVM platform support dependent on 
> >       * Error handling in APR is somewhat strange and it could be quite
> >         difficult for us to continue to meet the "throw std::string"
> >         approach we have today.
> 
> I vote against making LLVM dependent on even MORE things that we do not
> control. 

Okay. Vote registered. :)

>  At least with the current system, we get to define the
> interfaces, while putting in yet another tool, we are dependent on how
> it does things.

Just to be very clear, we would still control the *interface* just not
the implementation. The lib/System headers would continue to exist, we
just wouldn't have separate implementations of the functionality for
each platform. Instead we'd use whatever small bits of APR were
applicable to LLVM. No APR header file would be visible outside the
implementation of lib/System.

> 
> I think the complexity of being dependent on large external libraries
> (APR, boost, et al) is enough of a downside to not incorporate them.

Okay.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040912/5fe1f874/attachment.sig>