aguinet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:2147
+ CC = CallingConv::Tail;
+ break;
case lltok::kw_cc: {
----------------
Again here this "big" diff is a result of clang-format. We can see that
"kw_aarch64_sve_vector_pcs" has been "clang-formated" but not the rest. I would
prefer just add a one-line diff and maybe also add annotations?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64ISelLowering.h:876
SDValue LowerAAPCS_VASTART(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) const;
+ SDValue LowerAAPCSFromDarwin_VASTART(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) const;
SDValue LowerDarwin_VASTART(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) const;
----------------
mstorsjo wrote:
> aguinet wrote:
> > Same problem as with clang-format: clang-tidy suggests
> > "lowerAapcsFromDarwinVastart", which would mean modifying the whole file
> > for consistency. Should we set clang-tidy to ignore this file?
> I think the churn generally isn't considered worth it regarding such things;
> such changes can be quite disruptive to downstream users (with a lot of
> non-upstream code) for little benefit. Same thing here, not sure what the
> policy is regarding annotations.
I do agree that a big diff just for this is counter productive. There are few
places where we already have clang-format annotations, like
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/TextAPI/MachO/TextStub.cpp#L262
. Maybe we can add one here?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89490/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89490
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
