benlangmuir wrote: > Would you have a different opinion if I told you that the next PR in my > queue re-introduces AFFECTING_*_CODEGENOPT to represent the affecting > ENUM_LANGOPT(ExceptionHandling, ...?
I think it helps a bit, but the core problem is that we don't have `BENIGN_CODEGENOPT`. > (FWIW I'm, working on simplifying the hierarchy of LANGOPT macros so that the > "effect on AST" is an explicit argument to the X macro. If we apply the same > concept on CODEGENOPT, I think that gets us into a reasonable place where the > naming is consistent between both and everything is explicit. Yes, applying this to codegen options seems clear enough to me, because it makes "benign" explicit, which is what is lacking currently. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146422 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
