Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Naming conventions #39

Open
langston-barrett opened this issue Oct 6, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Naming conventions #39

langston-barrett opened this issue Oct 6, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees
@langston-barrett

Comments

@langston-barrett
Copy link
Collaborator

There's really one kind of "block" in the LLVM world. LLVM simply calls them llvm::Block, and we should do the same for the sake of brevity.
@langston-barrett langston-barrett self-assigned this Oct 6, 2022
@langston-barrett
Copy link
Collaborator Author

More generally, we might consider creating a glossary of common abbreviations and then using them consistently in relation names. Some suggestions:

  • func: LLVM function
  • block: LLVM basic block
  • var: LLVM variable
  • ctx: Context
  • ptr: Pointer
  • ty: LLVM type

... etc

@langston-barrett langston-barrett mentioned this issue Oct 6, 2022
Merged
@langston-barrett langston-barrett changed the title Rename basicblock, basic_block to just block Naming conventions Oct 7, 2022
@langston-barrett
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We should also consider making the naming conventions for variables more consistent. The standard convention is to use CamelCase, lots of the Datalog code currently follows the bizzare ?questionCamelCase convention.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@langston-barrett langston-barrett

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@langston-barrett