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

[Pete Cooper]

> On Nov 6, 2014, at 4:52 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?
FWIW, I prefer a ToolsSupport library.  It gives us the opportunity to put other tools specific things in there if we find them.  I can’t, for example, think of the dylib needing YAML right now, although I could be wrong.

At least if we made it ToolsSupport then we wouldn’t have come back in a few months/year and ask to rename it from CrashRecovery.

Pete
> 
> 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?
> 
> -Chris
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com <mailto:beanz at apple.com>> wrote:
>> The other thought I had which motivated this solution was that if we could strip all the functionality that is only really used by tools out into a separate library it would offer cleaner organization of code. Support seems to often get used as a dumping ground for stuff that just doesn’t fit anywhere else.
>>  
>> Based on your feedback and Chandler’s maybe this just isn’t the right separation. I can look into a solution to address our hackiness without creating a separate library.
>> 
>> What other stuff do you think belongs in ToolsSupport that doesn't belong in Support? Looking back at the initial email, you have command line parsing and ToolOutputFile.
>> 
>> We could split out command line parsing, but it doesn't seem worth it, given that we're still carrying regex support, Unicode conversion, dynamic library support, and other things that probably aren't absolutely necessary.
>> 
>> What about splitting out a CrashRecovery library instead? That seems a lot more targeted and meaningful. We'd probably put ToolOutputFile.cpp in there.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141106/98359545/attachment.html>