mylai-mtk wrote: Excuse me, @MaskRay . I don't understand your stance:
> I understand the intention to generalize naming, but I feel that there is > significance chance that the over-generalization may not work with the > alternative CFI schemes, and this change could turn out to be needed when the > other schemes go with different IR constructs. I get that this renaming is an over-generalization, and more changes in the future may be required should different CFI schemes arise, so I guess you're suggesting maybe we should not do the renaming. > I feel that we should make such renaming at this time. But then you propose that we make the renaming now. (??) I'm quite confused by the conflict of these two paragraphs. Can you talk more about your view? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109080 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
