[cfe-dev] Handling ignored calling conventions

[Aaron Ballman]

Committed in r165015, thank you for the reviews!

~Aaron

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:15 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> 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.