erichkeane added a comment.
Please feel free to wordsmith my ABI change comment. I don't feel strongly
other than trying to make it clear that `_ExtInt` is no longer a type/types. A
question for other reviewers: Do we feel strongly enough to try to keep the old
mangling around via the `clang-abi-version` flag? I'm not motivated, as
`__ExtInt` was generally experimental, but I want to make sure noone feels
strongly.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:145
+- The mangling of the ``_ExtInt(N)`` datatype has changed in both the Microsoft
+ ABI and Itanium ABI.
----------------
Hrm... not a huge fan that this still claims that ``_ExtInt`` is a type(though
don't have a better wording), but I'd also probably want to mention that it now
matches the new type. Perhaps something like:
The ``_ExtInt(N)`` family of types have been replaced with the C2X
standardized version of the feature, ``_BitInt(N)``. Therefore, source that
previously used the ``_ExtInt`` types will now be mangled to instead use the
``_BitInt(N)`` spelling in both the Microsoft and Itanium ABIs.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/TargetInfo.h:581
/// limitation is put into place for ABI reasons.
- virtual bool hasExtIntType() const {
+ /// FIXME: _BitInt is a required type in C23, so there's not much utility in
+ /// asking whether the target supported it or not; I think this should be
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Concur on the fixme. I would expect after this lands that an llvm-dev
> discussion happen to do this alert, and have us remove this pretty quickly (a
> release or two?)
To clarify: This should be removed at the beginning of a release-cycle (along
with an llvm-dev notice) so that we have as much time as possible in trunk to
react/find issues.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108643
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
