thakis marked an inline comment as done.
thakis added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/utils/gn/secondary/llvm/triples.gni:10
+} else {
+ assert(false, "missing host_cpu " + host_cpu)
}
----------------
phosek wrote:
> I don't think `host_cpu` would ever be missing since it's detected by GN
> (unless it's a new architecture that GN doesn't recognize), should this
> rather be `unsupported host_cpu` or something along those lines?
"missing" as in "this is missing code here". "unsupported" doesn't seem quite
right since the whole GN build is unsupported :-) And if someone needs a new
host_cpu, they can just send a patch. `"not-yet-implemented host_cpu " +
host_cpu`? I don't think the exact error string is super important though.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56095/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56095
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
