On 11/28/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:45:33PM -0800, jerry gay wrote: > > i propose reorganizing the tree to improve clarity and cohesion. > > Reorganization would be good at this point, but should be undertaken > cautiously so as to minimize unpleasantness. > indeed. here's a list of things that should make the reorg easier: * there will be no changes until after this weekend's release. * i will make sure the list is notified some time before a change is to occur: what is changing, and when. this should allow those with uncommitted patches some time to prepare. * the changes will be in small increments to keep them cohesive and avoid coupling. this should also make it easier to find problems down the road. * these changes will be tested on at least two platforms before a commit. some may even be posted to the list for review before application. * some smaller changes (less likely to corrupt builds) will be made first, to test the waters
> * I can't find a rationale for putting both 'imcc' and 'compilers' at > the top level. (Though I see a note that you intended imcc to be > under compilers; if so, I think that's good.) > i intended for the tests to be under t/compilers/, only because i have previously been focusing on a test suite reorganization. that's almost complete now, and has led me to these observations of the parrot directory structure. i agree that imcc should be better incorporated in the tree, and i think compilers/ is the best place for it. also, ast/ (which leo mentioned) will be moved under compilers/ as well. > * Should pasm be considered a compiler for source organization > purposes? I suppose in theory it should: There's more than one > assembler syntax for most CPUs. And AFAICT, the actual pasm > implementation is intermixed with the PIR implementation, so if imcc > goes into compilers, it'll take pasm with it. > looks like you answered your own question there. > * The directory name 'src' is a bit fuzzy to me, if 'imcc' and > 'compilers' aren't part of it. Perhaps 'vm' for the core > machine...? That would include infrastructure PMCs. > good idea. vm/ sounds good to me, but i'll wait for feedback on that before making any changes. besides, src/ related changes will probably happen last, anyway. ~jerry
