erichkeane added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h:394 + return true; + } + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > rjmccall wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > The problem with having both functions that take `ASTContext`s and > > > > functions that don't is that it's easy to mix them, so they either need > > > > to have the same behavior (in which case it's pointless to have an > > > > overload that takes the `ASTContext`) or you're making something really > > > > error-prone. > > > > > > > > I would feel a lot more confident that you were designing and using > > > > these APIs correctly if you actually took advantage of the ability to > > > > not store trailing FPOptions in some case, like when they match the > > > > global settings in the ASTContext. That way you'll actually be > > > > verifying that everything behaves correctly if nodes don't store > > > > FPOptions. If you do that, I think you'll see my point about not > > > > having all these easily-confusable functions that do or do not take > > > > `ASTContext`s.. > > > I think I disagree with @rjmccall that these requiresTrailingStorage > > > should be here at all. I think we should store in the AST ANY programmer > > > opinion, even if they match the global setting. It seems to me that this > > > would be more tolerant of any global-setting rewrites that modules/et-al > > > introduce, as well as make the AST Print consistent. Always storing > > > FPOptions when the user has explicitly overriding it also better captures > > > the programmer's intent. > > I covered this elsewhere in the review. If you want to have that tolerance > > — and I think you should — then expressions should store (and Sema should > > track) the active pragma state, which can be most easily expressed as a > > pair of an FPOptions and a mask to apply to the global FPOptions. When you > > enter a pragma, you clear the relevant bits from the global FPOptions mask. > > > > But the whole point of putting this stuff in trailing storage is so that > > you can make FPOptions as big as you need without actually inflating the > > AST size for a million nodes that don't care in the slightest about > > FPOptions. > > But the whole point of putting this stuff in trailing storage is so that > > you can make FPOptions as big as you need without actually inflating the > > AST size for a million nodes that don't care in the slightest about > > FPOptions. > > I meant to say: for a million nodes that don't care in the slightest about > FPOptions, as well as for a million more nodes that aren't using pragma > overrides. Right, I get the intent, and I completely agree with that. My point was EVERY Expr that is affected by a #pragma should store it. Though, after looking at your Macro concern above, I'm less compelled. I guess was suggesting that the logic for "requiresTrailingStorage" should just be "modified by a pragma" instead of "FPOptions != The global setting". Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76384/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76384 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
