> On Oct 23, 2018, at 11:09 AM, Erik Pilkington via Phabricator > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > 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?
This certainly does seem like an oversight, and I can't think of any good reason why this change just set ObjC1 and not ObjC2 like all the other places this was done. Jim > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D53547 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
