myhsu marked 2 inline comments as done.
myhsu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td:3125
+foreach i = {0-4} in
+ def m680#i#0 : Flag<["-"], "m680"#i#"0">, Group<m_m68k_Features_Group>;
----------------
myhsu wrote:
> bruno wrote:
> > rengolin wrote:
> > > Same question as @RKSimon had below: Shouldn't this cover all models the
> > > back-end recognises?
> > Unless you are planning to add 100 or more target variations I'd prefer to
> > see these explicitly defined instead of a `foreach`. If I'm grepping for a
> > specific CPU variation in the code base it's nice to get that information
> > easily.
> @rengolin I think the backend currently doesn't support M68060 either
Update: I've just put the sub-target (skeleton) for M68060. So now you can
specific M68060 :-)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/M68k.cpp:44
+
+ llvm::Regex CPUPattern("m?680([01234]{1})0");
+ llvm::SmallVector<StringRef, 2> Matches;
----------------
RKSimon wrote:
> Why no 68060 ?
@RKSimon Just added 060's support :-)
Currently I don't see any major ISA difference between 060 and 040 (correct me
if I'm wrong). So I just put a sub-target skeleton and clang support for 060,
and fill in the details in the future
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88394/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D88394
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
