jansvoboda11 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.
Ok, so what do you suggest? Change all `CODEGENOPT` to `BENIGN_CODEGENOPT` before this PR lands? (Or alternatively/equivalently go all the way and add an explicit `benign` effect on AST argument to `CODEGENOPT`, similar to what I linked above for `LangOptions`?) Then we can add `compatible` in this patch, and `affecting` for `ExceptionHandling` in a follow up PR. Would that make more sense to you? 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
