michalpaszkowski wrote: > Please don't use the term canon/canonicalize for this pass or tool. LLVM has > an existing notion of "canonicalization" which does not coincide with what is > being done here.
@nikic I don't think the name "canon" or "canonicalizer" will lead to any confusion here. This is in fact what the pass is doing and mimics the name of MIR canonicalizer with similar assumptions as @plotfi noted . Using the term "canonicalization" for the current/existing set of passes is not really common or well defined. As for the RFC, there was a discussion thread in the LLVM Dev Mailing: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-August/134475.html https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68176 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
