Chris Lattner wrote: } > I tend to agree. I'm a strong advocate of XML myself (on other } > projects). However, introducing XML would make LLVM dependent on some } > kind of XML parser. We could probably get away with expat (small, fast) } > for our purposes in LLVM, but there is still the issue of dependency. To } } To me, it's not a matter of "one more dependency". If it makes sense and } buys us something tangible, it would make sense to go with XML. In my } mind, for our purposes, if the config file gets complex enough to need } tool support like this, we have already failed. } Okay. I didn't know how complex you were expecting the config files. But keep in mind that a parser will still be needed for MS style INI files. I admit a bias here: I've worked with MS style INI files. They didn't leave a good impression with me. However, they do fit the bill for a lot of applications. What do you envision a typical INI file to look like? -bw -- || "If wishes and buts were clusters of nuts, we'd all have a bowl of || granola!" - Mr. Jellineck
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:> Hi Bill, > On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 21:31, Bill Wendling wrote: > > Hi Reid, > > > > > Since there's been little feedback on the design document I sent out, > > > some decisions are being made in order to progress the work. If you have > > > strong feelings about any of these, voice them now! > > > > > > 1. Name = llvmcc > > > > I like llvmcc, but really have no strong opinion. > > I think we're slowly setting on llvmcs (LLVM Compiler Suite or > Compilation System).aka llvm cool stuff> I tend to agree. I'm a strong advocate of XML myself (on other > projects). However, introducing XML would make LLVM dependent on some > kind of XML parser. We could probably get away with expat (small, fast) > for our purposes in LLVM, but there is still the issue of dependency. ToTo me, it's not a matter of "one more dependency". If it makes sense and buys us something tangible, it would make sense to go with XML. In my mind, for our purposes, if the config file gets complex enough to need tool support like this, we have already failed. -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://nondot.org/sabre/
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Bill Wendling wrote:> I admit a bias here: I've worked with MS style INI files. They didn't > leave a good impression with me. However, they do fit the bill for a lot > of applications. What do you envision a typical INI file to look like?I was thinking of something simple like this: [.c] compile = cc1 %in -o %out optimize = gccas %in -o %out.bc link = gccld ... [.cpp] compile = cc1plus %in -o %out ... etc. Something like that. The exactly details are still very much up in the air, but just simple key/value pairs is all we should need. -Chris