Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-23 20:07 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Path] RFC: Known directories
> We appear to use both system_temp_directory(true) and > system_temp_directory(false) in ways that seem like they could matter. > For instance, modules uses a temp directory that does not get erased > on reboot, possibly for performance reasons. Do we gain something from > deprecating system_temp_directory()?I have a small preference for having the distinction in the name: *_temp_* -> something that is one use and potentially deleted often *_cache_* -> something we would like to save (modules for example). So what we gain is clarity over a bool parameter. Cheers, Rafael
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:>> We appear to use both system_temp_directory(true) and >> system_temp_directory(false) in ways that seem like they could matter. >> For instance, modules uses a temp directory that does not get erased >> on reboot, possibly for performance reasons. Do we gain something from >> deprecating system_temp_directory()? > > I have a small preference for having the distinction in the name: > > *_temp_* -> something that is one use and potentially deleted often > *_cache_* -> something we would like to save (modules for example). > > So what we gain is clarity over a bool parameter.We already have user_cache_directory, and it means something different than system_temp_directory(false) today. ~Aaron
Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-23 20:27 UTC
[llvm-dev] [Path] RFC: Known directories
On 23 November 2015 at 15:11, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> We appear to use both system_temp_directory(true) and >>> system_temp_directory(false) in ways that seem like they could matter. >>> For instance, modules uses a temp directory that does not get erased >>> on reboot, possibly for performance reasons. Do we gain something from >>> deprecating system_temp_directory()? >> >> I have a small preference for having the distinction in the name: >> >> *_temp_* -> something that is one use and potentially deleted often >> *_cache_* -> something we would like to save (modules for example). >> >> So what we gain is clarity over a bool parameter. > > We already have user_cache_directory, and it means something different > than system_temp_directory(false) today.It was just added. My understanding was that the intention was for it to have the correct semantics for things like clang modules. Maybe we should * Rename user_cache_directory to just cache_directory * Adjust it semantics so that it can be used in cases that currently uses system_temp_directory(false). * Replace remaining uses with temp_directory. That is, in the end we would have only * temp_directory * cache_directory * home_directory What do you think? Cheers, Rafael