phosek added a comment. In D59168#1472152 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59168#1472152>, @jdenny wrote:
> 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? Not at the moment as far as I'm aware, but I'd like to make sure we consider all aspects to avoid more transitions in the future. >> 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. This may be also beneficial for other compilers that would like to support Clang's C++ library. >> but that wouldn't work for libomp > > If we decide libomp shouldn't be version-locked, then I guess > `lib/openmp/<target>` would work. SGTM > 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++`. AFAIK no other libraries currently use `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
