On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think this hurts Clang layering and maintainability. At the moment, >> *within Clang*, it's very useful to have most of the CodeGen headers in >> lib/CodeGen rather than within include/clang/CodeGen, since that makes >> obvious and enforces the layering between CodeGen's private headers and the >> rest of Clang. >> >> => I'm opposed to this change. The CodeGen API is even more >> implementation details than the AST and Sema API. If you want to include >> clang's internal implementation details, go ahead, but I don't think we >> should break our own layering to support this. >> > > Do we (or did we) have actual layering problems where parts of clang think > they can call into CodeGen? Today the only include into clang/Codegen comes > from FrontendTool. > Yes, before the ABI-relevant bits were hoisted into the AST layer, there were some terrible hacks between the AST and CodeGen. They got fixed, but I think it is reasonable to want to avoid them.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
