Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:43:35 -0500 From: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <bjkfbsd@gmail.com>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r277803 - projects/clang360-import/lib/clang/include Message-ID: <20150129204335.43ed88f1@kan> In-Reply-To: <1422471037.15718.64.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201501271925.t0RJPem3010417@svn.freebsd.org> <CAJ5_RoAvww7xFsSTBMPDThYsbpVbxOs11nWE=eEXpJRFx_kyww@mail.gmail.com> <20150127191134.4fe3a17f@kan> <F7477A20-BC56-4CF9-8520-77F7BFD4B72E@FreeBSD.org> <20150128091457.1b0ea3a7@kan> <2DA71591-EE38-42F9-983F-8E711CA36A75@FreeBSD.org> <20150128133946.7243a0fc@kan> <1422471037.15718.64.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:50:37 -0700 Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 13:39 -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:37:44 +0100 > > Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > > On 28 Jan 2015, at 15:14, Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:42:48 +0100 > > > > Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > ... > > > >> I'm not sure what the problem is with storing a compiler's > > > >> internal-only headers in the location where upstream expects > > > >> them to be? Note that gcc does something similar; for example > > > >> with the gcc49 port, it stores all its internal headers under: > > > >> > > > >> /usr/local/lib/gcc49/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd11.0/4.9.3/include > > > >> > > > >> While I do agree that this is not a pretty-looking path, > > > >> upstream has chosen it to be like this, and there are most > > > >> likely good reasons for it. As for clang, I just want to get > > > >> rid of as many "FreeBSD is a special snowflake" patches as I > > > >> can. > > > > > > > > Nobody _expects_ them to be there, for they are internal and not > > > > directly addressable by anyone. We can tweak locations as we > > > > see fit with no user visible consequences. What you destroy by > > > > this is the nice property we had to date - all of the base > > > > headers could be searched by simple grep on /usr/include and no > > > > obscure directories need to be remembered. > > > > > > First you say "they are internal and not directly addressable", > > > and in the next sentence you say that it is a "nice property that > > > you could search by grepping /usr/include". If the files are > > > internal and not directly addressable, why would you ever want to > > > search them? > > > > > > > Because people do software development on FreeBSD from time to time > > they tend to want to know what's in there. If one has to resolve to > > start hunting for answers in header files, all they want is for you > > to start hiding them in random places. grep -r <blah> /usr/include > > is easy. > > > > > > > In that respect, it is even better to relocate them to a different > > > location than /usr/include, since they're not *FreeBSD* headers, > > > they're clang internal headers. > > > > > > In other words, I consider this a win, not any form of loss. :) > > > > > > -Dimitry > > > > > > > They are FreeBSD headers as long as you ship clang as part of > > FreeBSD sources. Your change does not improve usability, since > > headers are internal and having them under /usr/include does not > > hurt anyone nor is that a change that is hard to maintain. By > > moving them you actively hurt source transparency by forcing > > someone to potentially hunt for answers in many disjoint > > directories and as such this is a net loss. No smilies. > > > > The choice is yours, of course. > > > > The change clearly improves maintainability, at essentially zero cost > to usability, your contrived example notwithstanding. > > If the question were phrased "Hey, should we mix private header files > belonging to the toolchain in with our public header files?" I would > expect the answer to be an overwhelming "Hell no!" along with a > variety of sarcastic comments about how the answer is really a > no-brainer. > > -- Ian > I presume that is why we did the other day around ever since forever. 'Hell no' indeed. -- Alexander Kabaev -- Alexander Kabaev
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150129204335.43ed88f1>