anwel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp:903-907
+ for (std::string &Feature : Features) {
+ if (Feature.compare(SearchFeature) == 0)
+ return true;
+ }
+ return false;
----------------
chill wrote:
> This explicit loop can be written like:
> ```
> return llvm::any_of(getTargetOpts().Features(),
> [&](auto &P) { return P == SearchFeature; });
> ```
>
I see your point, but using a for loop seems to better match the style of the
code.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/reg-alloc-wout-fixed-regs.ll:3
+;
+; Equivalent C source code
+; void bar(unsigned int i,
----------------
SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> As all these tests (this file and the ones above) are the same, the
> "equivalent C source code" is the same, perhaps move all these cases into 1
> file.
I see your point, but I'd still prefer to leave them as they are because in my
opinion having the test cases separated into individual files it's much easier
to grasp what they are doing.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68862/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68862
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
