lenary accepted this revision. lenary added a comment. In D57497#1923615 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497#1923615>, @shiva0217 wrote:
> In D57497#1921497 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497#1921497>, @lenary wrote: > > > How hard would it be to use the `-msmall-data-threshold` flag work if a > > `-msmall-data-limit` flag is not provided? > > > I think it won't be hard, users just need to find the same semantic flags > when switching between LLVM and GCC. If we use the same flag for the same > functionality, we could avoid the effort. Does it sound reasonable? I'm not suggesting "don't support `-msmall-data-limit=`". I'm suggesting "use `-msmall-data-threshold=` if `-msmall-data-limit=` is not specified". Actually, we can always add this support in later, it shouldn't block this patch. I'm happy for this patch to be merged - @jrtc27 is too, so let's wait for @apazos's final thoughts. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
