Request for review: build infrastructure for Clang

[Max Laier]

On Monday 17 May 2010 23:21:22 Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/17/10 02:26, Ed Schouten wrote:
> > * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at 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