2016-06-21 23:07 GMT+08:00 Peter Smith <peter.sm...@linaro.org>: > 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
Thanks for the pointers! Please see the refined (again) patches. As a side note, there's no "gnueabi" in float-ops.ll or eh-directive-personalityindex.s, so I skipped them. In addition, I found a few other relevant test files to patch thanks to your advice. Lei
llvm-musl-arm-v3.patch
Description: Binary data
clang-musl-arm-v3.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
