vhscampos added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/AArch64.cpp:413
- auto V8_6Pos = llvm::find(Features, "+v8.6a");
- if (V8_6Pos != std::end(Features))
- V8_6Pos = Features.insert(std::next(V8_6Pos), {"+i8mm", "+bf16"});
+ const char *Archs[] = {"+v8.6a", "+v8.7a", "+v9.1a", "+v9.2a"};
+ auto Pos = std::find_first_of(Features.begin(), Features.end(),
----------------
SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> How about `+v9a`?
Since v9a maps to v8.5a, and the latter was skipped in the original code, I did
not include v9a here.
================
Comment at: llvm/unittests/Support/TargetParserTest.cpp:495
ARMBuildAttrs::CPUArch::v8_A));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(
+ testARMArch("armv9-a", "generic", "v9a",
----------------
SjoerdMeijer wrote:
> I haven't looked, but in these target parser tests, do we also not need to
> check the architecture descriptions?
> Copied this for example from the target parser def file:
>
> (ARM::AEK_SEC | ARM::AEK_MP | ARM::AEK_VIRT | ARM::AEK_HWDIVARM |
> ARM::AEK_HWDIVTHUMB | ARM::AEK_DSP | ARM::AEK_CRC | ARM::AEK_RAS |
> ARM::AEK_DOTPROD)
If I understand it correctly, we only check architecture extensions for CPUs,
not for the architectures themselves.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D109517/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D109517
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
