michaelplatings marked 3 inline comments as done. michaelplatings added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:86-89 + a match. + If more than one variant matches then a toolchain may opt to either use only + the *last* matching multilib variant, or may use all matching variants, + thereby layering them. ---------------- amilendra wrote: > Would it be possible to give more details on how the toolchain makes this > choice? Added below: "This decision is hard-coded per ToolChain subclass" ================ Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:89 + the *last* matching multilib variant, or may use all matching variants, + thereby layering them. +#. Generate ``-isystem`` and ``-L`` arguments. Iterate in reverse order over ---------------- amilendra wrote: > What would be the effect of layering? Does this mean multiple choices for > `--sysroot``, ``-isystem`` and ``-L`` will be used? Added a section below on multilib layering ================ Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:97 + +Multilib via configuration file shall be considered an experimental feature +until LLVM 18, at which point ``-print-multi-selection-flags-experimental`` ---------------- amilendra wrote: > Would it be worth to also add a flag to activate/deactivate the multilib > feature for the duration that it is experimental? > IIUC, a similar mechanism was used before switching to a new pass manager. I think no because the feature is implicitly disabled by a lack of multilib.yaml. I added some text explaining what's necessary to enable the feature which hopefully makes that clearer. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143587/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143587 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
