leonardchan added a comment. In D93668#2482986 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93668#2482986>, @phosek wrote:
> I'd prefer to use the target triple rather than introducing a custom flag. > > With dedicated flags, you might eventually end up in a similar situation as > D85802 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D85802>, that is in the extreme case you > might end up with `-f[no-]fuchsia-c++-abi`, `-f[no-]webassembly-c++-abi`, > etc. which is not any better than `-fc++-abi=`. > > With target triple, I can imagine using either > `<arch>-unknown-fuchsia-itanium` or `<arch>-unknown-fuchsia-gnu`, where the > former would mean targeting Fuchsia with Itanium C++ ABI while the latter > would mean using GCC compatible ABI (which would imply Itanium C++ ABI). Both > of these are already used by MinGW for the same purpose so there's a > precedent and we don't need to invent anything new. @mcgrathr Would you be fine with using the triple instead of a new flag in this case? 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
