probinson added a comment. In D59347#1444819 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347#1444819>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D59347#1443051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347#1443051>, @dblaikie wrote: > > > @asmith: Where's the LLVM-side change/review that goes with this, btw? > > > > In D59347#1442970 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347#1442970>, @probinson > > wrote: > > > > > As a rule I would prefer flags with positive names, as it's slightly > > > easier to read `!isTrivial` than `!isNonTrivial`. And trivially shorter. > > > :-) > > > > > > Fair enough - I was mostly coming at this from the "the patch that was > > committed should be reverted" & then we could haggle over other things, but > > fair point. > > > Hmm, one other thought: Technically "non trivial" is perhaps more > accurate/less error prone. Only marking structures as "trivial" but other > types without that marker makes it more subtle (since not all trivial types > would be marked trivial - only those of a classification that means they > /could/ be non-trivial). Whereas marking the non-trivial types is more > broadly accurate. Well, that's a reasonable point in favor of keeping the NonTrivial flag. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59347 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
