aheejin accepted this revision. aheejin added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM % nit and the name resolution (multimemory vs. multi-memory) ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:4583-4584 def mno_extended_const : Flag<["-"], "mno-extended-const">, Group<m_wasm_Features_Group>; +def mmulti_memories : Flag<["-"], "mmulti-memories">, Group<m_wasm_Features_Group>; +def mno_multi_memories : Flag<["-"], "mno-multi-memories">, Group<m_wasm_Features_Group>; def mexec_model_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mexec-model=">, Group<m_wasm_Features_Driver_Group>, ---------------- sbc100 wrote: > tlively wrote: > > Can we call this "multimemory" for consistency with "multivalue" above? > How about just `multi_memory`? > > In the past we have talked about "multi-table" and "multi-memory" without > using the plural here and the proposal itself is names using the singular > (https://github.com/WebAssembly/multi-memory). I like `multi-memory` more, but I preferred `multi-value` too when it was introduced... ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssembly.td:76 + SubtargetFeature<"multi-memory", "HasMultiMemory", "true", + "Enable multimemory">; + ---------------- Other feature descriptions are also in plain sentences, so.. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D158409/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D158409 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
