cebowleratibm added a comment. From my perspective, the only issue holding this up is settling on the name. I'd like to hammer that out and get this committed.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/TargetCXXABI.h:116 + /// - static initialization is adjusted to use sinit and sterm functions; + XL_Clang, + ---------------- cebowleratibm wrote: > sfertile wrote: > > Xiangling_L wrote: > > > daltenty wrote: > > > > Why the underscore in the name? This is a bit inconsistent with both > > > > the LLVM naming convention here and the name as it appears in other > > > > sources. > > > There are various AIX ABI. So to distinguish the one we are implementing, > > > we choose `XL` and `Clang` as two parts of the abi name. > > > `XL` - not g++; > > > `Clang` - it's a ABI implemented in Clang; > > > > > > And also `XLClang` is misleading because it represents our AIX XL C/C++ > > > compiler itself externally. > > So do we need the 'Clang' part in the name? For example the ABI below is > > not `Microsoft_Clang`. Or is the `_Clang` differentiating between multiple > > XL ABIs? > I suspect the concern is that "XL" ABI is ambiguious between legacy xlC and > xlclang++. The two differ at the C++11 language level so perhaps it makes > sense to have "XLC++11"? (and theoretically just "XL" if we ever decide xlC) Another suggestion: "IBMXL" or "IBMXLC++11" CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74015/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74015 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
