phosek added a comment. In D93668#2482995 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93668#2482995>, @rnk wrote:
> I guess a triple of -fuchsia-itanium would be a reasonable way of expressing > this. > > Why would we want a feature flag for the wasm C++ ABI? Is there a use case > for using the webassembly C++ ABI on non-wasm ISAs? We've been considering the use of WASM as a binary format in Fuchsia at which point we'd need to decide which C++ ABI to use in those cases. There are no concrete plans yet, but I want to make sure that whatever solution we come up with doesn't result in multiple new flags down the line. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93668/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93668 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
