dblaikie added a comment. In D59347#1443051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347#1443051>, @dblaikie wrote:
> @asmith: Where's the LLVM-side change/review that goes with this, btw? > > In D59347#1442970 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347#1442970>, @probinson wrote: > > > As a rule I would prefer flags with positive names, as it's slightly easier > > to read `!isTrivial` than `!isNonTrivial`. And trivially shorter. :-) > > > Fair enough - I was mostly coming at this from the "the patch that was > committed should be reverted" & then we could haggle over other things, but > fair point. Hmm, one other thought: Technically "non trivial" is perhaps more accurate/less error prone. Only marking structures as "trivial" but other types without that marker makes it more subtle (since not all trivial types would be marked trivial - only those of a classification that means they /could/ be non-trivial). Whereas marking the non-trivial types is more broadly accurate. @asmith - is this patch now essentially a revert of the trivial flag addition? Or are there any parts that were not reverted, if so, why not? (I would expect/imagine all the testing could be reverted too - since the NonTrivial flag was presumably already tested appropriately?) Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
