llvm dev - Feb 2014 - [LLVMdev] Heads-up: changing the structure of compiler-rt source tree

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at
cl.cam.ac.uk
> wrote:
> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the
> reorganisation?
>
No.

>
> David
>
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 09:59, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>
wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > compiler-rt is now not only a libgcc replacement for different
> platforms, there are sanitizer and profile runtimes as well. I plan to move
> the files as follows during this week:
> >
> > 1. libraries:
> > a) all libgcc replacement stuff moves from "/lib" to
"/lib/core" (the
> name sucks, please suggest alternatives). Same for platform-specific code:
> "/lib/arm/"->"/lib/core/arm",
"/lib/i386"->"/lib/core/i386" etc.
> > b) "/BlocksRuntime"->"/lib/BlocksRuntime"
> > c) "/lib/sanitizer_common", "/lib/xsan",
"/lib/profile" are not moved.
> >
> > 2. tests:
> > all tests (lit tests and unit tests) are moved from directories under
> "/lib" to "/test" to be consistent with LLVM/Clang test
subtrees.
> >
> > See the original mail from Chandler for the overview of compiler-rt
tree
> current state and suggestion to change its structure:
> >
>
http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/Sanitizers-libs-in-Compiler-RT-tp4037520p4037567.html
> >
> > Please speak up if you disagree with this.
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Samsonov, MSK
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>

-- 
Alexey Samsonov, MSK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140212/0eb4d4cf/attachment.html>

On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:21, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at
cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the
reorganisation?
> 
> No.
Given that the consensus appeared to be that this is where it belongs... why
not?  It seems strange to do a big reorganisation pass, but not do all of it.

David

Hi David,

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at
cl.cam.ac.uk
> wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:21, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, David Chisnall <
> David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Are you going to move the unwind library there as part of the
> reorganisation?
> >
> > No.
>
> Given that the consensus appeared to be that this is where it belongs...
> why not?  It seems strange to do a big reorganisation pass, but not do all
> of it.

To be honest, I haven't worked with the unwind library. I'm fine with
moving it to compiler-rt, but this should probably be done by someone with
a sufficient
knowledge of the library and/or its use cases. I'd be glad to provide any
help, though.

-- 
Alexey Samsonov, MSK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140212/e339128e/attachment.html>