michaelplatings added a comment. Thanks @MaskRay for taking a look and thanks @simon_tatham for the review of the change. This change affects existing code so I think it deserves its own commit, but I'll move it down the stack to before D142932 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142932> so that later changes use the new names immediately, and I'll incorporate Simon's suggestions into those.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:66 ``--target=armv7m-none-eabi`` are equivalent. Clang can also accept many - independent pieces of information within a single flag - for example + independent pieces of information within a single option - for example ``-march=armv8.1m.main+fp+mve`` specifies the architecture and two ---------------- simon_tatham wrote: > An "option" here seems to be the same thing as an "argument" elsewhere in > this paragraph. Since the terminology is already confusing, perhaps simplify > by using the same word consistently throughout? I think "option" is more > precise, because //positional// clang arguments like input files definitely > //don't// play a part in this mechanism. I'll incorporate this into D143587. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:71 + arguments into a standard set of simpler "tags". In many cases these tags will look like a command line argument with the leading ``-`` stripped off, + but where a suitable form for the tag doesn't exist in command line ---------------- simon_tatham wrote: > This is a particular case where "option" seems like a better word. Not every > //argument// has a leading `-` in the first place. But every //option// does. > > (Or, at least, in the default Unix / gcc style of clang options. I suppose in > `clang-cl` even that is not true, because options can have a leading `/` in > Windows style. I assume that in that situation the options are normalised to > their GNU representation before converting into multilib selection tags?) I'll incorporate this into D143587. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:182 # List of multilib variants. Required. # The ordering of Variants is important if more than one variant can match + # the same set of tags. See the docs on multilib layering for more info. ---------------- simon_tatham wrote: > That capital V looks unintentional to me, and is potentially confusing – > someone might go looking for a formal definition of it somewhere. I'll incorporate this into D143587. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Multilib.h:64-65 + /// Get the set of tags that indicate this multilib's use. + /// Tags are arbitrary strings although typically they will look similar to + /// command line options. A multilib is considered compatible if its tags are + /// a subset of the tags derived from the Clang command line options. ---------------- simon_tatham wrote: > Tags are arbitrary strings, some of which are derived from command-line > options and look similar to them, and others can be defined by a particular > multilib.yaml I'll move this change to earlier in the stack before multilib.yaml is a thing, but then I'll update the comment with your suggestion in D142932. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D145567/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D145567 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits