On 12/19/06, Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > On 12/19/06, Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Changes in directory llvm/include/llvm: > >> > >> PassManager.h updated: 1.36 -> 1.37 > >> --- > >> Log message: > >> > >> s/BasicBlockPassManager/BBPassManager/g > >> s/ModulePassManager/MPPassManager/g > >> > > Why these name changes? LLVM seems to enjoy longer, more descriptive > > names than abbreviations. > > We had FunctionPassManager and FunctionPassManagerImpl. > And I needed another pass manager to manage FunctionPasses. So I used > FPPassManager name. > > So, now > > FunctionPassManager and PassManager are externally visible managers. > > FunctionPassManagerImpl and PassManagerImpl provides implementation > support for these two externally visible managers. > > And, BBPassManager, FPPassManager and MPPassManagers are internal > managers used to implement pass manager infrastructure. Here, I thought, > it would be confusing to use BasicBlockPassManager name. Because it may > imply that it is at the same level as FunctionPassManager (the one > that is > externally visible in PassManager.h). > Ah! Okay. Would having something like the "Impl" suffix work? Maybe something like "Internal"? I don't have any real objections to using abbreviations. I was mostly just curious. I'll leave it to your better judgement.
-bw _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
