Xiangling_L marked 3 inline comments as done.
Xiangling_L added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/ItaniumCXXABI.cpp:520
+
+class XLCXXABI final : public ItaniumCXXABI {
+public:
----------------
sfertile wrote:
> 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.
I see. Thank you for your clarification.
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
