AaronBallman wrote: > @AaronBallman Do you have thoughts on clang binary naming?
Sorry, am in WG14 meetings all week and so my response times are delayed. I believe our historical stance has been that "user facing" applications are prefixed with `clang-` (e.g., `clang-format`, `clang-repl`, `clangd`, `clang-tidy`, `clang-query`, etc) and "internal" applications aren't (`diagtool`, `pp-trace`, etc). But there's always inconsistencies, like `scan-build` or `modularize` being user facing and `clang-import-test` being internal. :-D Because this is a clang tool that's being installed (as best I can tell from the cmake), I think it should probably be prefixed with `clang` unless there's a motivating argument otherwise. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/185631 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
