jdenny added a comment. In D59168#1479939 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168#1479939>, @phosek wrote:
> In D59168#1474715 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168#1474715>, @jdenny wrote: > > > Does the following match what you have in mind? > > > > $prefix/ > > include/ > > c++/ > > v1/ > > limits.h > > ... > > openmp/ > > v1/ <------ I don't think openmp has anything like this now > > > Iibc++ uses this scheme to allow the possibility of evolving the API but I'm > not sure if it's necessary for openmp. It seems we have roughly the same situation for their ABIs. That is, for .so files, someone noted that libc++ and libunwind have always used the same version, .1, and openmp doesn't use a version (except in Debian packages). In other words, for each of these three, a change in ABI compatibility has never been indicated. For openmp only, it's apparently assumed a change never will need to be indicated (except in Debian packages). There may be some very good rationale for why openmp is different in this way, but I haven't yet learned what it is. > > >> omp.h >> ompt.h >> ... >> lib/ >> c++/ >> $target/ >> libc++abi.so >> ... >> openmp/ >> $target/ >> libomp.so >> ... >> clang/ >> 9.0.0/ <----- resource directory >> include/ >> lib/ >> $target/ >> libclang_rt.asan_cxx.a >> ... >> >> > > Almost with a small variation: > > $prefix/ > include/ > c++/ > v1/ > limits.h > ... > openmp/ > omp.h > ompt.h > ... > lib/ > $target/ <--- This way we don't have to duplicate $target in each > subdirectory We duplicate c++, openmp, etc. in each $target instead. If you have only one target, I guess that's better. Otherwise, does it matter? > and it matches the layout of the resource directory Does the resource directory have any subproject directories, like c++, openmp, etc? If not, then it matches just as well either way. You just remove the level of subproject directories, right? > c++/ > libc++abi.so > ... > openmp/ > libomp.so > ... > clang/ > 9.0.0/ > include/ > lib/ > $target/ > libclang_rt.asan_cxx.a > ... > > WDYT? To be clear, I'm not opposed to your proposals. I'm just trying to understand the relative advantages. Thanks. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
