AaronBallman wrote: > > Out of curiosity, how does the current division of Sema fit into the > > "unique language dialect" classification? I've noticed there are a bunch of > > architecture specific Sema classes (e.g. SemaRISCV, SemaX86) and those > > don't really fit the classification. > > They are a different group of `Sema` parts, dedicated for backend-specific > code. `SemaX86` and `SemaARM` serve as a good example of what a populated > backend-specific part looks like.
Yup, and they're an example of where it helps to have layering (if parts of `SemaARM` need to call into `SemaX86`, it's good for that dependency to be more explicit). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98954 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
