llvm dev - Jan 2016 - Consistently prefixing llvm/bin executables

Has it ever been considered to prefix executables like opt, bugpoint,
obj2yaml, yaml2obj and macho-dump with llvm-?

Especially things like 'opt' are too generic of a name and very
likely to clash with existing stuff in $PATH.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Carsten Mattner via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Has it ever been considered to prefix executables like opt, bugpoint,
> obj2yaml, yaml2obj and macho-dump with llvm-?
>
FYI, macho-dump doesn't exist anymore.
That said, I understand the concerns for binutils equivalent (and maybe
opt), but I don't think it's too much a concern for all the other
tools. All the binutils equivalent have llvm- prefix as far as I can tell.
Also, as a downside, prefixing llvm- makes the name more verbose
(which I dislike).

My $0.02,

-- 
Davide

"There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
or less solved" -- Henri Poincare

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Carsten Mattner via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Has it ever been considered to prefix executables like opt, bugpoint,
> > obj2yaml, yaml2obj and macho-dump with llvm-?
> >
>
> FYI, macho-dump doesn't exist anymore.
> That said, I understand the concerns for binutils equivalent (and maybe
> opt), but I don't think it's too much a concern for all the other
> tools. All the binutils equivalent have llvm- prefix as far as I can tell.
> Also, as a downside, prefixing llvm- makes the name more verbose
> (which I dislike).
Which could be circumvented with a driver/wrapper named llvm:

$ llvm ld ....
$ llvm opt ...
$ llvm cc
$ llvm db
$ llvm ranlib
$ llvm bugpoint
$ llvm yaml2obj
...