On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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?
+1, let’s iterate more and have it “battle tested” on clang before we hoist it
on llvm.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
