dblaikie added a comment. In D135326#3851672 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135326#3851672>, @dblaikie wrote:
> (abandoned this, but still kind of curious) > > @rjmccall - any background/history of having the CXXABI distinct from the OS? > I guess the point might've been that the C ABI is part of/the definition of > the OS, but maybe the CXX ABI is more "floating"/flexible on top of that? > Though it means these CXX ABIs don't get the benefit of being grouped with > the rest of the targetOS - instead they're a bunch of switches, which seems a > bit unfortunate, but I guess there's not lots of properties here, so maybe > that's OK. I guess the other question: Is this flexibility valuable/worthwhile, or could we fold the CXXABI back into the TargetOS? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135326/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135326 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
