llvm dev - Oct 2018 - [RFC] Move Virtual File System from clang to llvm

Hi everybody,

I'm working on adding reproducers to LLDB [0] and I'd like to use
clang's
virtual file system (VFS), similar to how it is used today for reproducers in
clang. I believe the functionality is generic enough that it warrants living in
support, next to the "real" file system. I can imagine that other
tools might
benefit from this functionality as well.

I created a patch [1] to show what this would look like. Most of the changes
are the result of the vfs now living in the llvm namespace.

What do you think?

[0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2018-September/014184.html
[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D52783

I haven’t reviewed the patch in detail, but +1 to the concept!
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 8:24 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I'm working on adding reproducers to LLDB [0] and I'd like to use
clang's
> virtual file system (VFS), similar to how it is used today for reproducers
in
> clang. I believe the functionality is generic enough that it warrants
living in
> support, next to the "real" file system. I can imagine that other
tools might
> benefit from this functionality as well.
> 
> I created a patch [1] to show what this would look like. Most of the
changes
> are the result of the vfs now living in the llvm namespace.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> [0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2018-September/014184.html
> [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D52783
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

+1 from me.
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 8:24 AM, Jonas Devlieghere <jdevlieghere at
apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> I'm working on adding reproducers to LLDB [0] and I'd like to use
clang's
> virtual file system (VFS), similar to how it is used today for reproducers
in
> clang. I believe the functionality is generic enough that it warrants
living in
> support, next to the "real" file system. I can imagine that other
tools might
> benefit from this functionality as well.
> 
> I created a patch [1] to show what this would look like. Most of the
changes
> are the result of the vfs now living in the llvm namespace.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> [0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2018-September/014184.html
> [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D52783

Sounds fine to me.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, 08:25 Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev, <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm working on adding reproducers to LLDB [0] and I'd like to use
clang's
> virtual file system (VFS), similar to how it is used today for reproducers
> in
> clang. I believe the functionality is generic enough that it warrants
> living in
> support, next to the "real" file system. I can imagine that other
tools
> might
> benefit from this functionality as well.
>
> I created a patch [1] to show what this would look like. Most of the
> changes
> are the result of the vfs now living in the llvm namespace.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2018-September/014184.html
> [1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D52783
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181003/5a49e544/attachment.html>

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:25 AM Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm working on adding reproducers to LLDB [0] and I'd like to use
clang's
> virtual file system (VFS), similar to how it is used today for reproducers
in
> clang. I believe the functionality is generic enough that it warrants
living in
> support, next to the "real" file system. I can imagine that other
tools might
> benefit from this functionality as well.
>
> I created a patch [1] to show what this would look like. Most of the
changes
> are the result of the vfs now living in the llvm namespace.
>
> What do you think?
+1