================
@@ -7282,6 +7283,8 @@ bool AArch64AsmParser::ParseDirective(AsmToken
DirectiveID) {
parseDirectiveCFINegateRAState();
else if (IDVal == ".cfi_negate_ra_state_with_pc")
parseDirectiveCFINegateRAStateWithPC();
+ else if (IDVal == ".cfi_llvm_set_ra_state")
----------------
walkerkd wrote:
Looking at how the existing directives have been named I think it would make
sense to call it `.cfi_set_ra_state`.
If we go with `.cfi_llvm_set_ra_state` then when binutils implements it with
the expected name `.cfi_set_ra_state` we will either have to rename to follow
suit (and all users uses of it) or have to add an alias so existing users code
doesn't break.
Personally I think going with the name `.cfi_set_ra_state` is cleaner for the
longer term.
I think if this directive was only expected to be implemented in LLVM then
having `llvm` in the name would make sense. But as is expected to be
implemented in both (and possibly other) toolchains at some point, the name
without `llvm` make more sense to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/205442
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
