erik.pilkington added a subscriber: jingham.
erik.pilkington added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/IdentifierTable.cpp:166-167
// in non-arc mode.
- if (LangOpts.ObjC2 && (Flags & KEYARC)) return KS_Enabled;
- if (LangOpts.ObjC2 && (Flags & KEYOBJC2)) return KS_Enabled;
+ if (LangOpts.ObjC && (Flags & KEYARC)) return KS_Enabled;
+ if (LangOpts.ObjC && (Flags & KEYOBJC)) return KS_Enabled;
if (LangOpts.ConceptsTS && (Flags & KEYCONCEPTS)) return KS_Enabled;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Would it make sense to fold `KEYOBJC` and `KEYARC` together?
Yep, good point. Looks like we used to only enable these keywords in -fobjc-arc
mode, but now that we're doing it for objective-c there isn't any distinction
to be made here. I'll commit this in a follow-up.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/ExpressionParser/Clang/ClangExpressionParser.cpp:408
// non-Apple platforms, but for now it is needed.
- m_compiler->getLangOpts().ObjC1 = true;
+ m_compiler->getLangOpts().ObjC = true;
break;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Curious, this looks like it was the *only* way we previously ever got into
> `ObjC1` mode. Any idea why this path turns on `ObjC1` but not `ObjC2`?
This comes from https://reviews.llvm.org/D11102. I can't really imagine this
being anything but an oversight, I doubt that there is some subtle reason to
use ObjC1. @jingham: Can you confirm that there isn't any reason to use just
ObjC1 and not ObjC1+ObjC2 here?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53547
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
