Hello Lei, The changes to llvm and clang look ok to me. I've got some suggestions for testing.
For the clang patch, it looks like there isn't a test to check that musleabihf implies hard floating point. It looks like Driver/arm-mfpu.c CHECK-HF might be a good candidate to add a test. For the llvm patch I think you should be able to find a test that checks the behaviour of GNUEABI and GNUEABIHF for each of the properties that you've added Subtarget->isTargetMuslAEABI() to or equivalent. It would be useful to add a test case for MUSLEABI and/or MUSLEABIHF. For example in the RTLIB case there are a large number of tests that check whether the correct __aeabi_ function is called. Some files I came across (there are many more) that might be a good place to check that musleabi and musleabihf behaves like gnueabi and gnueabihf: CodeGen/ARM/memfunc.ll CodeGen/Thumb2/float-ops.ll CodeGen/ARM/divmod-eabi.ll CodeGen/ARM/fp16.ll (hard-float for HF) MC/ARM/eh-directives-personalityindex.s Peter On 21 June 2016 at 14:36, Lei Zhang <zhanglei.ap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-06-20 19:05 GMT+08:00 Lei Zhang <zhanglei.ap...@gmail.com>: >> 2016-06-18 8:52 GMT+08:00 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espind...@gmail.com>: >>> There are probably a few more places that need to be patched. >>> >>> In particular, take a look at lib/Target/ARM. There are things like >>> computeTargetABI and isTargetHardFloat that probably need to be >>> updated (and tested). >> >> Any hints how to test the new changes? I guess merely checking clang's >> output like the previous test cases won't suffice this time. > > Here're the refined patches. Please let me know if the test cases > aren't complete. > > Thanks, > Lei _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
