[PATCH] D143587: [Docs] Multilib design

[Michael Platings via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

michaelplatings marked 3 inline comments as done.
michaelplatings added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:86-89
+   a match.
+   If more than one variant matches then a toolchain may opt to either use only
+   the *last* matching multilib variant, or may use all matching variants,
+   thereby layering them.
----------------
amilendra wrote:
> Would it be possible to give more details on how the toolchain makes this choice?
Added below: "This decision is hard-coded per ToolChain subclass"


================
Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:89
+   the *last* matching multilib variant, or may use all matching variants,
+   thereby layering them.
+#. Generate ``-isystem`` and ``-L`` arguments. Iterate in reverse order over
----------------
amilendra wrote:
> What would be the effect of layering? Does this mean multiple choices for `--sysroot``, ``-isystem`` and ``-L`` will be used?
Added a section below on multilib layering


================
Comment at: clang/docs/Multilib.rst:97
+
+Multilib via configuration file shall be considered an experimental feature
+until LLVM 18, at which point ``-print-multi-selection-flags-experimental``
----------------
amilendra wrote:
> Would it be worth to also add a flag to activate/deactivate the multilib feature for the duration that it is experimental?
> IIUC, a similar mechanism was used before switching to a new pass manager.
I think no because the feature is implicitly disabled by a lack of multilib.yaml. I added some text explaining what's necessary to enable the feature which hopefully makes that clearer.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D143587/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D143587