nickdesaulniers added a comment.
Thanks for the patch! Don't forget to run `git-clang-format HEAD~`.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/ARM.cpp:160-161
+ if (ThreadPointer == ReadTPMode::Cp15 &&
+ getARMSubArchVersionNumber(Triple) < 7 &&
+ llvm::ARM::parseArch(Triple.getArchName()) !=
llvm::ARM::ArchKind::ARMV6T2) {
+ D.Diag(diag::err_target_unsupported_tp_hard) << Triple.getArchName();
----------------
The last two checks seems redundant (`getARMSubArchVersionNumber(Triple) < 7 &&
llvm::ARM::parseArch(Triple.getArchName()) != llvm::ARM::ArchKind::ARMV6T2`).
If the `ArchKind` was `ARMV6T2` then `getARMSubArchVersionNumber` should return
`6`.
Or do we want to support ARMv6T2, in which case the patch description should be
edited:
> ensure that -mtp=cp15 is rejected for ARMv6T2 or earlier.
s/ARMv6T2 or earlier/ARMv6 (except ARMv6T2) or earlier/
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/clang-translation.c:118-119
+// RUN: %clang -target armv5t-linux -mtp=cp15 -### -S %s 2>&1 | \
+// RUN: FileCheck -check-prefix=ARMv7_THREAD_POINTER_UNSUPPORTED %s
+// ARMv7_THREAD_POINTER_UNSUPPORTED: error: hardware TLS register is not
supported for the armv5 sub-architecture
+
----------------
The `-check-prefix` should probably s/ARMv7/ARMv5T/.
It might be interesting to additionally test armv6 vs armv6t, depending on the
answer to my question above.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113026/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D113026
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
