khchen added a comment.
In D71124#2010759 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71124#2010759>, @lenary wrote:
> This is looking good.
>
> I remember we discussed this on the LLVM call a few weeks ago - there was a
> discussion as to whether we should be prioritising `-march` or `-mcpu` - do
> you recall the outcome of that discussion?
Sorry, I don't remember the outcome of discussion...
I thought it make sense if both mcpu and march are specified, and march
extensions overrides the mcpu extension
This also allows users to specific superset or subset of march.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/RISCV.cpp:501-516
- // 3. Choose a default based on the triple
- //
- // We deviate from GCC's defaults here:
- // - On `riscv{XLEN}-unknown-elf` we use the integer calling convention only.
- // - On all other OSs we use the double floating point calling convention.
- if (Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::riscv32) {
- if (Triple.getOS() == llvm::Triple::UnknownOS)
----------------
lenary wrote:
> What's the justification for removing this code?
I changed the logic in how to get the default march by calling
`getRISCVArch(Args, Triple);`
`getRISCVArch` can also get the default march based on the triple, so we don't
need above code now.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.cpp:310
+ case llvm::Triple::riscv64:
+ if (const Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_mcpu_EQ))
+ return A->getValue();
----------------
lenary wrote:
> Should we be doing more validation here?
I think we don't need to validation here, we have validation in
RISCVTargetInfo::isValidCPUName. You can see it work in
test/Driver/riscv-cpus.c#L22.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71124/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71124
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
