=?utf-8?q?“Amr?= <am...@programmer.net>, =?utf-8?q?“Amr?= <am...@programmer.net>, =?utf-8?q?“Amr?= <am...@programmer.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160...@github.com>
AmrDeveloper wrote: > It's unclear to me what you're intending to do here. This is part of the code > that you're trying to move into a shared location, right? Do you want to > commit this implementation here and remove it later if/when the shared code > refactoring is accepted? What I was saying is that if this is going to be committed into CIR/CodeGen it should follow the naming conventions there. For example, vtableClassNameForType and classTypeInfo. My idea was to isolate the shared part into an anonymous namespace, and once https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157936 is accepted and merged, I will just remove that namespace, and everything should work fine. I totally agree that anything that will be committed to CIR/** should follow the name conventions that we use. However, the downside is that we will need to refactor twice to make the shared code have the same style as CIR/* and then revert function names once the refector PR is merged. I am totally okay with that, it will not be too many changes (Less than maybe adding temp CGM :D), I will do that now. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160002 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
