I just saw a question on SO: get pointer for CallInst? which has been heavily tagged:

llvm clang llvmclang llvm-clang

It seems rather clear to me that the latter 3 could be merged into a single one, in fact merging llvmclang and llvm-clang has already been suggested (I do not seem to have a high enough score to downvote it).

I tried to suggest merging clang and llvmclang, as well as clang and llvm-clang, and in both cases my request was denied.

  • I cannot suggest llvmclang as a synonym for clang because it is itself a (suggested) master
  • I cannot suggest llvm-clang as a synonym for clang because it is already a (suggested) synonym for llvmclang

I would appreciate if someone could step in and merge those 3 tags (preferably to the shortest tag...)

  • The proper form would be llvm-clang not llvmclang. – agf Sep 1 '11 at 9:40
  • 1
    @agf: I would argue that the proper form is clang itself, because most of clang (short of the code generation modules) only rely on small utility tools hosted in LLVM. – Matthieu M. Sep 1 '11 at 9:45
  • I was just addressing which of those two would correctly point to the other the way tags are named, I wasn't making a judgement about whether clang should be separate from llvm-clang. – agf Sep 1 '11 at 9:47
  • +1, I was looking at a question, with the llvmclang tag and then saw llvmclang and llvm-clang and thought shouldn't those just be clang; secondly llvmclang and llvm-clang do not have tag wikis while clang does and it has a good one at that. – Dan D. Feb 17 '12 at 21:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .