search for: bikesheds

2012/11/22 Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>: > Hello LLVM & Clang hackers! > > Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great > Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. > > First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make: > > 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... -> llvm/lib/IR/... > > I've

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/11/22 Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>: >> Hello LLVM & Clang hackers! >> >> Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great >> Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. >> >> First and foremost, the two most

Hello LLVM & Clang hackers! Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make: 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... -> llvm/lib/IR/... I've discussed potential names for the VMCore (or LLVMCore) library with lots of folks, and the best idea anyone

Lacking any dissenting opinions, I wanted to give a heads up to folks: I plan to do the two major renamings I mentioned above this weekend. I'll do it over the weekend to try to minimize the number of patches that folks have outstanding touching files in those trees. I'll respond later this week with more details to help sort out any last questions of naming. It looks like the only real

On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:02 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >>> First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make: >>> >>> 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... -> llvm/lib/IR/... >>> >>> I've discussed potential names for the VMCore (or LLVMCore) library >>> with lots of folks, and the best idea

On 11/22/12 04:53 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: > 2012/11/22 Chandler Carruth<chandlerc at google.com>: >> Hello LLVM& Clang hackers! >> >> Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great >> Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. >> >> First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make:

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Have you got any statistics for the current state of LLVM with respect > to this formatting issue? If something is already the overwhelmingly > common style (& it's not a case where it used to be the style, the > style has been updated, and nothing has been migrated yet) then just

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > s/ExecutionEngine/EE/ (or something like buzzword!) I don't really know the best bikeshed color here. Jim? My lame idea would be: ExecutionEngine -> JIT ExecutionEngine -> JIT/Legacy ExecutionEngine/MCJIT -> JIT/MC ExecutionEngine/OProfileJIT -> JIT/OProfile

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Hello LLVM & Clang hackers! > > Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great > Renaming of Things for the 3.3-era LLVM and Clang codebase. > > First and foremost, the two most significant changes I would like to make: > > 1) llvm/lib/VMCore/... ->

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Have you got any statistics for the current state of LLVM with respect >> to this formatting issue? If something is already the overwhelmingly >> common style (& it's not

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:49 AM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > On 11/22/12 04:53 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: >> >> 2012/11/22 Chandler Carruth<chandlerc at google.com>: >>> >>> Hello LLVM& Clang hackers! >>> >>> >>> Based on a discussion with Chris, I would like to propose a Great

Catching up on post-holiday emails. I may have comments on the more general stuff later, but wanted to respond to this bit more quickly. On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: >> s/ExecutionEngine/EE/ (or something like buzzword!) > > I don't

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > tl;dr If there are no objections I'd like to change clang-format's LLVM > style to always put `template <...>` on its own line. I think it's a general > code-layout consistency win and avoids some cases where trivial code changes > result in significant formatting differences (see the

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at

> I really dislike that all the files and classes in the MC library > start with MC. This is c++, not c :( Same here. > > - Michael Spencer Cheers, Rafael

I think this endeavour is good. My request is that there be some words about whatever standard you come up with, probably in the coding standards documentation or at least a link from the coding standards to the file bike shed painting conventions. Don't make this an insider's rule. It is tiresome to have one's commit rejected due to undocumented preferences of the reviewer. Also,

Hi, I think it's an awesome idea to make sure all names are logical. It is an essential feature of a good API to have logical naming :) > I really dislike that all the files and classes in the MC library > start with MC. This is c++, not c :( On a similar note, all the classes in clang/CodeGen are prefixed with CG or even CodeGen, could those be renamed as well? And speaking of the

> Are there other names that are poor choices and are lingering in our > codebases? I'm willing to sign up to do more renames while I'm at > this, so this is a chance to get someone else to do the heavy lifting. > =] Class names too, not just file/directory names? I've been trolling through the integrated assembler lately, and had a real "can't tell the players

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Have you got any statistics for the current state of LLVM with

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:16:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 07:52:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> 1) C makes no guarantees about structure layout beyond the first > >> member. Yes, if it's naturally aligned or has a packed attribute, > >>