[PATCH] D59251: [Documentation] Proposal for plan to change variable names

[Tim Northover via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

t.p.northover added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Proposals/VariableNames.rst:133
+
+The following is a list of acronyms considered sufficiently useful that the
+benefit of using them outweighs the cost of learning them. Acronyms that are
----------------
michaelplatings wrote:
> t.p.northover wrote:
> > How was this list derived? It seems a bit skewed towards mid-end development over back-end.
> > 
> > `MRI` is `MachineRegisterInfo` to me (and about 70% of LLVM code by a quick grep); and `TLI` is `TargetLoweringInfo` (rarer than TargetLibraryInfo this time, but still about 30% of uses).
> > 
> > I know someone specifically mentioned being surprised by conflicting acronyms when moving to different parts of LLVM, but I think it's rare enough that we should still allow them.
> The list was largely compiled from those mentioned in the RFC thread - more can be added in future. I made a mistake with MRI, I've changed it to MachineRegisterInfo.
> Was `TargetLoweringInfo` renamed to `TargetLowering`? In that case TLI seems less appropriate. If this is controversial then I'll remove it from the proposal for now.
Wow, I never noticed the acronym didn't really match up for TLI! Yep, `lowering` seems reasonable under that.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59251/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59251