sfertile added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/ItaniumCXXABI.cpp:520 + +class XLCXXABI final : public ItaniumCXXABI { +public: ---------------- Xiangling_L wrote: > sfertile wrote: > > Here would be a good place to add a comment to indicate that XL has several > > C++ ABIs, but this represents the one used in 'xlClang++'. > You mean we have legacy XLC and XLClang++ ABI? But for static init, they have > same implementation. So it's not a must to point it out. > > And also AFAIK, `static init` is the only thing we will differ from Generic > Itanium ABI in the frontend, so basically it's the only thing we will add in > this ABI. > > I am okay with either way with a little concern that legacy XLC user may > wonder is there any difference of static init implementation between XLC and > XLClang++ ABI if we add the comment. Sorry, I had a matching comment on the 'XL' enum, but I must have deleted it accidentally before submitting. I said I agreed with using just 'XL' since there is only one XL C++ ABI implemented in Clang we don't have to worry about differentiating between the 'legacy' XL and the C++11 XL ABIs. If you did want to clarify then adding a comment here would be the only thing I suggest. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74015/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74015 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits