On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > > > This is a really good point. I think you’re right and the way forward is > to work on this in clang and look at moving it to llvm later. Does that > sound reasonable to you Manuel? > All right, sounds like a plan.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
