tejohnson marked 2 inline comments as done.
tejohnson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/svml-calls.ll:16
+
+define void @sin_f64(double* nocapture %varray) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @sin_f64(
----------------
steven_wu wrote:
> Personally, I think codegen tests like this will be cleaner to keep in LLVM.
> Clang tests just test the IRGen of the module flag and LLVM tests check that
> those flags are respected and module flag merge is respected.
Ok. I originally was doing it here to ensure that ThinLTO distributed backends
(which use clang) are fixed. But now that the approach no longer involves
passing down additional info via that path into LTO, I don't think we need to
test this explicitly but rather just as an LLVM LTO test. Will move.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/LTO/LTOBackend.cpp:221
+static TargetLibraryInfoImpl *createTLII(Module &Mod, TargetMachine *TM) {
+ TargetLibraryInfoImpl *TLII =
----------------
steven_wu wrote:
> Should this be done not just for LTOBackend but for regular compilation as
> well? LegacyCodegenerator and llc can all be benefit from a matching
> TargetLibraryInfo?
Yeah, probably. I think the best way to have this utilized everywhere is to
move the below code into the TargetLibraryInfoImpl itself - by having it also
take the Module as a parameter). Probably as a required parameter, to ensure it
is used consistently. WDYT?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60162/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60162
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
