[cfe-dev] Handling ignored calling conventions

[John McCall]

On Sep 25, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:47 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>> Third, the boolean value for AcceptsCallConv is backwards.
>> That's okay given that you want to extend AcceptsCallConv later,
>> but it suggests that you shouldn't name your method like a
>> predicate, because I would totally be tempted to do something like:
>>  if (Target.acceptsCallingConv(...)) {
> 
> That's a good point.  I've renamed the method to testCallingConvention
> which should be a bit more clear.  I've kept AcceptsCallConv as the
> enumeration name.

Sorry for the continued nit-picking, but checkCallingConvention would be
more standard, and the enum really should get renamed.  I would go with
CallingConvCheckResult.

With that, this is approved.

John.