Jubilee Young 23623a08d6 Explicitly assign constructed C++ classes
C++ style guides I am aware of recommend specifically preferring = syntax
for any classes with fairly obvious constructors[^0] that do not perform
any complicated logic in their constructor. I contend that all constructors
that the `rustc_llvm` code uses qualify. This has only become more common
since C++ 17 guaranteed many cases of copy initialization elision.

The other detail is that I tried to ask another contributor with
infinitely more C++ experience than me (i.e. any) what this constructor
syntax was, and they thought it was a macro. I know of no other language
that has adopted this same syntax. As the rustc codebase features many
contributors experienced in many other languages, using a less...
unique... style has many other benefits in making this code more
lucid and maintainable, which is something it direly needs.

[^0]: e.g. https://abseil.io/tips/88
2024-03-05 21:15:56 -08:00
..
2023-11-22 09:10:53 -08:00
2024-01-30 22:09:09 +00:00
2023-11-22 10:17:50 -08:00

This directory currently contains some LLVM support code. This will generally
be sent upstream to LLVM in time; for now it lives here.

NOTE: the LLVM C++ ABI is subject to between-version breakage and must *never*
be exposed to Rust. To allow for easy auditing of that, all Rust-exposed types
must be typedef-ed as "LLVMXyz", or "LLVMRustXyz" if they were defined here.

Functions that return a failure status and leave the error in
the LLVM last error should return an LLVMRustResult rather than an
int or anything to avoid confusion.

When translating enums, add a single `Other` variant as the first
one to allow for new variants to be added. It should abort when used
as an input.

All other types must not be typedef-ed as such.