Adding to allow users to get this flag into the target features section for future use cases.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
The other file to update here is clang/test/Driver/wasm-features.c. It looks like we haven't been as consistent about updating that one.
clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td | ||
---|---|---|
4586–4587 | Can we call this "multimemory" for consistency with "multivalue" above? |
clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td | ||
---|---|---|
4586 | How about just multi_memory? In the past we have talked about "multi-table" and "multi-memory" without using the plural here and the proposal itself is names using the singular (https://github.com/WebAssembly/multi-memory). |
LGTM % nit and the name resolution (multimemory vs. multi-memory)
clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td | ||
---|---|---|
4586–4587 | I like multi-memory more, but I preferred multi-value too when it was introduced... | |
llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssembly.td | ||
76 | Other feature descriptions are also in plain sentences, so.. |
clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td | ||
---|---|---|
4586–4587 | But if we are going to remove - here, we should treat it consistently in all other places, for example, it should be not HasMultiMemory but HasMultimemory in all code. We treat multivalue that way. Do we want that? |
clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td | ||
---|---|---|
4586–4587 | I prefer HasMultiMemory fwiw 😂 |
clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td | ||
---|---|---|
4586–4587 | I think multi-memory is more readable, but happy to do multimemory to fall in line with the other flags. +1 to preferring HasMultiMemory for readability. |
How about just multi_memory?
In the past we have talked about "multi-table" and "multi-memory" without using the plural here and the proposal itself is names using the singular (https://github.com/WebAssembly/multi-memory).