On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Nope, I'm quite happy putting this in the core sublibrary. =]
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
