Document the rational for the #include hierarchy.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@16056 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Reid Spencer 2004-08-26 18:52:52 +00:00
parent bf3a4d2e1b
commit 95189201d1

View File

@ -174,6 +174,118 @@
for further details on the progress of this work</p>
</div>
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
<div class="doc_subsection"><a name="bug">Rationale For #include Hierarchy</a>
</div>
<div class="doc_text">
<p>In order to provide different implementations of the lib/System interface
for different platforms, it is necessary for the library to "sense" which
operating system is being compiled for and conditionally compile only the
applicabe parts of the library. While several operating system wrapper
libraries (e.g. APR, ACE) choose to use #ifdef preprocessor statements in
combination with autoconf variable (HAVE_* family), lib/System chooses an
alternate strategy. <p>
<p>To put it succinctly, the lib/System strategy has traded "#ifdef hell" for
"#include hell". That is, a given implementation file defines one or more
functions for a particular operating system variant. The functions defined in
that file have no #ifdef's to disambiguate the platform since the file is only
compiled on one kind of platform. While this leads to the same function being
imlemented differently in different files, it is our contention that this
leads to better maintenance and easier portability.</p>
<p>For example, consider a function having different implementations on a
variety of platforms. Many wrapper libraries choose to deal with the different
implementations by using #ifdef, like this:</p>
<pre><tt>
void SomeFunction(void) {
#if defined __LINUX
// .. Linux implementation
#elif defined __WIN32
// .. Win32 implementation
#elif defined __SunOS
// .. SunOS implementation
#else
#warning "Don't know how to implement SomeFunction on this platform"
#endif
}
</tt></pre>
<p>The problem with this is that its very messy to read, especially as the
number of operating systems and their variants grow. The above example is
actually tame compared to what can happen when the implementation depends on
specific flavors and versions of the operating system. In that case you end up
with multiple levels of nested #if statements. This is what we mean by "#ifdef
hell".</p>
<p>To avoid the situation above, we've choosen to locate all functions for a
given implementation file for a specific operating system into one place. This
has the following advantages:<p>
<ul>
<li>No "#ifdef hell"</li>
<li>When porting, the strategy is quite straight forward: copy the
implementation file from a similar operating system to a new directory and
re-implement them.<li>
<li>Correctness is helped during porting because the new operating system's
implementation is wholly contained in a separate directory. There's no
chance to make an error in the #if statements and affect some other
operating system's implementation.</li>
</ul>
<p>So, given that we have decided to use #include instead of #if to provide
platform specific implementations, there are actually three ways we can go
about doing this. None of them are perfect, but we believe we've chosen the
lesser of the three evils. Given that there is a variable named $OS which
names the platform for which we must build, here's a summary of the three
approaches we could use to determine the correct directory:</p>
<ol>
<li>Provide the compiler with a -I$(OS) on the command line. This could be
provided in only the lib/System makefile.</li>
<li>Use autoconf to transform #include statements in the implementation
files by using substitutions of @OS@. For example, if we had a file,
File.cpp.in, that contained "#include &lt;@OS@/File.cpp&gt;" this would get
transformed to "#include &lt;actual/File.cpp&gt;" where "actual" is the
actual name of the operating system</li>
<li>Create a link from $OBJ_DIR/platform to $SRC_DIR/$OS. This allows us to
use a generic directory name to get the correct platform, as in #include
&lt;platform/File.cpp&gt;</li>
</ol>
<p>Let's look at the pitfalls of each approach.</p>
<p>In approach #1, we end up with some confusion as to what gets included.
Suppose we have lib/System/File.cpp that includes just File.cpp to get the
platform specific part of the implementation. In this case, the include
directive with the &lt;&gt; syntax will include the right file but the include
directive with the "" syntax will recursively include the same file,
lib/System/File.cpp. In the case of #include &lt;File.cpp&gt;, the -I options
to the compiler are searched first so it works. But in the #include "File.cpp"
case, the current directory is searched first. Furthermore, in both cases,
neither include directive documents which File.cpp is getting included.</p>
<p>In approach #2, we have the problem of needing to reconfigure repeatedly.
Developer's generally hate that and we don't want lib/System to be a thorn in
everyone's side because it will constantly need updating as operating systems
change and as new operating systems are added. The problem occurs when a new
implementation file is added to the library. First of all, you have to add a
file with the .in suffix, then you have to add that file name to the list of
configurable files in the autoconf/configure.ac file, then you have to run
AutoRegen.sh to rebuild the configure script, then you have to run the
configure script. This is deemed to be a pretty large hassle.</p>
<p>In approach #3, we have the problem that not all platforms support links.
Fortunately the autoconf macro used to create the link can compensate for
this. If a link can't be made, the configure script will copy the correct
directory from $BUILD_SRC_DIR to $BUILD_OBJ_DIR under the new name. The only
problem with this is that if a copy is made, the copy doesn't get updated if
the programmer adds or modifies files in the $BUILD_SRC_DIR. A reconfigure or
manual copying is needed to get things to compile.<p>
<p>The approach we have taken in lib/System is #3. Here's why:<p>
<ul>
<li>Approach #1 is rejected because it doesn't document what's actually
getting included and the potential for mistakes with alternate include
directive forms is high.</li>
<li>Approach #2 are both viable and only really impact development when new
files are added to the library.</li>
<li>However, approach #2 impacts every new file on every platform all the
time. With approach #3, only those platforms not supporting links will be
affected. The number of platforms not supporting links is very small and
they are generally archaic.</li>
<li>Given the above, approach #3 seems to have the least impact.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<!-- ======================================================================= -->
<div class="doc_subsection">
<a name="refimpl">Reference Implementation</a>