glaubitz marked an inline comment as done.
glaubitz added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/Sparc.cpp:246-256
+ if (getTriple().getOS() == llvm::Triple::Linux) {
Builder.defineMacro("__sparc_v9__");
- Builder.defineMacro("__sparcv9__");
+ } else {
+ Builder.defineMacro("__sparcv9");
+ // Solaris doesn't need these variants, but the BSDs do.
+ if (getTriple().getOS() != llvm::Triple::Solaris) {
+ Builder.defineMacro("__sparc64__");
----------------
glaubitz wrote:
> ro wrote:
> > glaubitz wrote:
> > > jrtc27 wrote:
> > > > This doesn't need changing, we can define more things than GCC to keep
> > > > it simple.
> > > Well, my original intent was to match GCC to make sure we're 100%
> > > compatible and I would like to keep it that way.
> > I agree with Jessica here: you're creating a complicated maze for no real
> > gain. Besides, have you checked what `gcc` on the BSDs really does? They
> > often neglect to get their changes upstream and what's in the gcc repo
> > doesn't necessarily represent what they actually use.
> Yes, I have verified that GCC behaves the exact same way as this change and I
> don't see any reason not to mimic the exact same behavior in clang for
> maximum compatibility.
FWIW, I meant GCC on the various BSDs. I do not think it's a wise idea to have
clang deviate from what GCC does as only this way we can guarantee that
everything that compiles with GCC will compile with clang.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98574/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98574
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
