Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 00:00:08 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Request for review: build infrastructure for Clang Message-ID: <201005180000.08299.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <4BF1B352.4030306@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100514152408.GN56080@hoeg.nl> <20100517092628.GC56080@hoeg.nl> <4BF1B352.4030306@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 17 May 2010 23:21:22 Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/17/10 02:26, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> lib/clang/..., as it is done for bind ?
> >
> > So I guess that would lead to the following directory structure?
> >
> > - lib/clang/libclang.../
> > - lib/clang/libllvm.../
>
> Yes.
>
> > - usr.bin/clang/clang/
> > - usr.bin/clang/tblgen/
>
> I don't think we have any hierarchies like this in the tree currently.
we do - e.g. usr.bin/bsdiff/{bsdiff,bspatch} and usr.sbin/acpi/* I can see
that the latter makes sense, but the former doesn't make immediate sense to
me. From my POV clang is more like acpi in this regard - at least for the
moment.
> I would vote for just usr.bin/clang, usr.bin/tblgen, etc. How many
> binaries are we talking about?
I can see the argument for grouping clang stuff together as it probably uses a
good amount of common Makefile definitions etc. In addition, as we keep this
as an option for the moment, having it confined as much as possible makes it
easy to disable/enable and allows to localize changes to the lot.
--
Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201005180000.08299.max>