[llvm-commits] [patch] Change how we handle mandatory unwind tables

[Duncan Sands]

Hi Rafael,

> So, what I don't understand now is why do I need a three state then? If keeping
> nounwind as is, I only need one bit more to tell me if the user or the ABI
> requires me to produce an unwind table entry.

the user might have explicitly asked for unwind-tables (using -funwind-tables),
or explicitly asked for no unwind-tables (using -fno-unwind-tables), or
explicitly asked for neither.  That makes three states :)

Ciao, Duncan.