[LLVMdev] [RFC] New ToolsSupport library for stuff that only tools need

[Chandler Carruth]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote:

> I think for the main goal of cleaning up the Mac-specific hack, a
> CrashRecovery library would work equally well. Juergen is more familiar
> with the WebKit side of things, so he may be aware of something I’m not
> thinking of.
>
> Chandler, does splitting out a CrashRecovery library instead seem sane?
>

I have a preference for leaving it in Support as "dead code" for the
library, and only calling routines to enable that functionality from tools.
This would of course require cleaning up any parts that are inherently bad
when linked into a library.

The reason isn't fundamental, it's just that splitting libraries,
especially as LLVM is currently set up, has a cost. Super fine-grained
libraries don't really make sense in this environment, and 'crash recovery'
seems quite fine grained and specific. Again, not bad in and of itself, but
not really a good fit in LLVM.


That's my two cents. Naturally, if it isn't *possible* to clean up the
mac-specific hacky bits and factor the crash recovery so that it is only
enabled when called, then that seems like an overriding concern. =]


> Other than code organization and naming, the general idea of splitting out
> a CrashRecovery library would be the same as the other patches I sent out.
> I was thinking of taking the approach of moving one symbol, fixing
> everything, then repeat.
>
> Does that seem like the right approach?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141106/9c67c30c/attachment.html>