Hello Lei, Thanks for all the updates. That looks good to me from an ARM perspective.
Peter On 22 June 2016 at 09:03, Lei Zhang <zhanglei.ap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
