awarzynski added a comment. In D130078#3673288 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130078#3673288>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D130078#3669072 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130078#3669072>, @awarzynski > wrote: > >> In D130078#3667188 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130078#3667188>, @MaskRay >> wrote: >> >>> `forwardOptions` will be better if you are renaming it anyway. >> >> I'd rather create a separate patch and update all other methods to follow >> LLVM's style. Any idea why the style is not followed in Clang.h >> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.h>? > > Clang is traditionally unfortunately very inconsistent in the code style.... > When you add new functions, you don't necessarily follow the Clang tradition > ;-) That's a good point :) In fact, let me update other methods in this file as well. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130078/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130078 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
