jdenny added a comment. In D59168#1470578 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168#1470578>, @phosek wrote:
> In D59168#1469186 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168#1469186>, @jdenny wrote: > > > > > > I was also thinking about alternative names for the library path, > specifically for headers we use `include/c++` but for libraries we'll now use > `lib/clang/<target>` which is not very consistent. Does that inconsistency cause a practical problem? > I was considering `lib/c++/<target>` instead A practical benefit might be the ability to use `-L` to expose clang's c++ libs without exposing other clang libs as well, but I'm not sure whether that's a real use case. > but that wouldn't work for libomp If we decide libomp shouldn't be version-locked, then I guess `lib/openmp/<target>` would work. Is it safe to assume that `lib/c++` and `lib/openmp` would manage to be as clang-dedicated as `lib/clang`? If other packages don't install to `include/c++`, then I suppose they don't install to `lib/c++`. 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
