On 11 February 2014 05:16, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > Very cool. A few high level questions: > - shouldn't the virtual file system go into llvm, not clang?
Not until we have a concrete need for one. In another tool. > - seems to me like there is only one AbstractFileSystem that should be owned > pretty top-level, so why use an IntrusiveRefCntPtr? > - why not make all the function virtual? Doesn't seem to have real > downsides, and would immediately enable fully virtualized file system > implementations (seems fine to have default implementations for all the > functions); if the plan is to have the functions state now to provide an > easier migration path, I think it'd make sense to add a comment describing > the end-state... I disagree with having unused features. We should really have only the functions that are needed and make virtual only the ones that actually need to be overridden. Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
