On Aug 30, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yea, the only problem is that the SA/Frontend library depends heavily on the >> Frontend library. We build all of the SA into a single library, but we >> probably shouldn't. Because we do that, when we check the library-level >> include layering, we find a cycle. > > I'm not certain why the SA/Frontend library was created in the first place. > Originally the Frontend library depended on the StaticAnalyzer, and there was > no cycle. Conceptually SA/Frontend is more part of the Frontend then the > static analyzer, and that's how it was actually implemented at one point. At > some point it seemed reasonable to move the static analyzer specific parts of > the Frontend into SA/Frontend out of the core Frontend library. This > over-refactoring is what has led to this confusion. > >> >> Here is one question perhaps, which of the 3 SA sub-libraries should this >> header belong to? >> > > Probably StaticAnalyzerCore. > My unproductive vitriol aside, would it help for me to create a 4th (leafy) library to include this leaf header? It's not completely silly, and would hopefully resolve this structuring issue.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
