On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:16 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Very cool. A few high level questions: > - shouldn't the virtual file system go into llvm, not clang? > > > I’m fine with putting this in llvm/Support instead of clang/Basic, but > we’ll need to check with llvm-dev and the libsupport code owner. If you > feel strongly about this I’ll send something to Chandler and llvm-dev. > So, one point: code owners don't have a "yes" or "no" to say to something. We just are responsible for finding a code reviewer if one doesn't show up to review a patch. That said, my suggestion is actually to get a good abstraction that you think *could* move productively to the LLVM support library but is easier to iterate on in clang/Basic. When you think it's looking good, maybe send it then? I just don't want to slow down the reviews with questions like -- how would LLD use this? How would it interact with X, Y, and Z use case that you don't (currently) have?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
