Page MenuHomePhabricator

[NFC][tblgen] rename function name Decode* to decode*
AbandonedPublic

Authored by achieveartificialintelligence on Oct 26 2021, 12:49 AM.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

achieveartificialintelligence requested review of this revision.Oct 26 2021, 12:49 AM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptOct 26 2021, 12:49 AM

I don't really have a problem with this, but you'd need to update *all* targets - not just RISC-V. Therefore I think it should be opened up to a wider audience.

achieveartificialintelligence retitled this revision from [NFC][tblgen][RISCV] rename function name Decode* to decode* to [NFC][tblgen] rename function name Decode* to decode*.Oct 26 2021, 2:45 AM

What does this actually achieve? As a downstream that adds register classes to multiple backends, whilst it's not difficult to adapt to, it's an annoyance to layer on top of all the other conflicts and refactorings that happen during each release cycle that has very little benefit I can see.

What does this actually achieve? As a downstream that adds register classes to multiple backends, whilst it's not difficult to adapt to, it's an annoyance to layer on top of all the other conflicts and refactorings that happen during each release cycle that has very little benefit I can see.

I'm trying to comply with Coding Standards, and I guess other targets may need to do the same?

What does this actually achieve? As a downstream that adds register classes to multiple backends, whilst it's not difficult to adapt to, it's an annoyance to layer on top of all the other conflicts and refactorings that happen during each release cycle that has very little benefit I can see.

I'm trying to comply with Coding Standards, and I guess other targets may need to do the same?

I realise, but there are countless violations of that throughout the tree, so I don't get why this one is so special that it needs changing now. Note that the coding standards *also* say:

There are some conventions that are not uniformly followed in the code base (e.g. the naming convention). This is because they are relatively new, and a lot of code was written before they were put in place. Our long term goal is for the entire codebase to follow the convention, but we explicitly do not want patches that do large-scale reformatting of existing code. On the other hand, it is reasonable to rename the methods of a class if you’re about to change it in some other way. Please commit such changes separately to make code review easier.