smeenai added a comment. In D58317#1404961 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317#1404961>, @phosek wrote:
> In D58317#1400223 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317#1400223>, @smeenai wrote: > > > I'm not entirely happy with the name clang-dev-headers, and am open to > > suggestions. It's unfortunate clang-headers was already taken for something > > different, but renaming that target or increasing its scope seems bad for > > existing users. Other possibilities I thought of include > > clang-tooling-headers, though that might be confused with the headers for > > libTooling specifically, and clang-library-headers. I'm open to suggestions. > > > We could consider renaming `clang-headers` to e.g. `clang-resource-headers` > and then reusing the name which would match `llvm-headers`. What do you think > about that? I like that, but I'm worried about breaking existing users of the clang-headers target (e.g. in their build scripts or distributions). I could post on cfe-dev and wait for dissent/consensus, I guess, but if there's an option which doesn't involve breaking backward compatibility, maybe that's preferable. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
