mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git
synced 2025-10-05 03:36:21 +00:00
869529a130
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
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.