rnk added a comment. In D93668#2485719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93668#2485719>, @mcgrathr wrote:
> It's fine to have a target tuple translate to a default C++ ABI. > But the C++ ABI selection is fundamentally not a target flavor thing. It's > just a C++ ABI thing. > So using the target tuple as the sole mechanism to determine C++ ABI is > fundamentally wrong. Generally speaking, the C++ ABI corresponds to the target tuple. I don't want to give the user separate control of the C++ ABI without a compelling use case. If a command line flag is available, users will set it, they will request the AArch64 or Microsoft C++ ABI on x64, they will create a novel, never-before-previously-tested configuration, and when it doesn't work, they will file bugs about it. I aim to head that off at the pass. The two compelling use cases that I've heard of so far are: 1. vanilla Itanium C++ ABI code on Fuchsia 2. targeting fuchsia using wasm, some Fuchsia C++ ABI features may be needed I think both of those cases can be handled with target tuples: *-*-fuchsia-itanium or webassembly-*-fuchsia Do you think we need another way of expressing this? 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
