rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30345#688298, @arphaman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30345#688144, @rjmccall wrote: > > > You're doing this refactor to... support doing another refactor of the same > > code? Why are these patches separate? > > > Not quite, by "merging block copy/destroy routines" I meant that my next > patch will try to generate the IR only for unique copy/destroy functions, so > individual functions will be merged. Ah, okay, sure. ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.cpp:1380 +/// entity that's captured by a block. +enum class BlockCaptureEntityType { + CXXRecord, // Copy or destroy ---------------- BlockCaptureEntityKind, please. ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.cpp:1389 +/// Represents an entity captured by a block that requires custom operations +/// to copy/release this entity. +struct BlockCaptureManagedEntity { ---------------- Grammar, and the complementary generic operation to "copy" is "destroy", not "release". ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.cpp:1391 +struct BlockCaptureManagedEntity { + BlockCaptureEntityType Type; + BlockFieldFlags Flags; ---------------- Similarly, please name this Kind. ================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.cpp:1608 +static std::pair<BlockCaptureEntityType, BlockFieldFlags> +computeDestroyInfoForBlockCapture(const BlockDecl::Capture &CI, QualType Type, + const LangOptions &LangOpts) { ---------------- Please don't name local variables "Type". "QT" or "T" would be fine. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D30345 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
