ashleynh added inline comments.
================ 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>, ---------------- tlively wrote: > aheejin wrote: > > aheejin wrote: > > > 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... > > But if we are going to remove `-` here, we should treat it consistently in > > all other places, for example, it should be not `HasMultiMemory` but > > `HasMultimemory` in all code. We treat multivalue that way. Do we want that? > I prefer HasMultiMemory fwiw 😂 I think multi-memory is more readable, but happy to do multimemory to fall in line with the other flags. +1 to preferring HasMultiMemory for readability. 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
