On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all.
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com>
wrote:
>> something to think about as llvm and clang grows.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
I hope you are joking.
It's not meant as a criticism of llvm or clang but there is already an
enormous amount
of technical debt.
It's something to try and get a handle on before it gets out of hand.
Documentation is one area where it is accumulating fast but there are
others.
Testing is another area.
Tablegen alone has huge technical debt.
To me, there should be a cap placed on the number of lines of code in llvm.
Like a budget. We should try and rewrite and refactor to keep the number
of lines from growing
without bound.
At this point lots of patterns should be developing where other tools
(like tablegen) could be
written to reduce the amount of code and make things more understandable.
Reed