pcwang-thead added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCV.td:568
-def : ProcessorModel<"generic-rv32", NoSchedModel, [Feature32Bit]>;
-def : ProcessorModel<"generic-rv64", NoSchedModel, [Feature64Bit]>;
+class RISCVProcessorModelPROC<string n,
+ SchedMachineModel m,
----------------
RISCVProcessorModelPROC->RISCVProcessorModel?
RISCVProcessorModelTUNE_PROC->RISCVTuneProcessorModel?
I think it is a little weird that we mixed naming styles here.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/RISCV/RISCV.td:576
+
+class RISCVProcessorModelTUNE_PROC<string n, SchedMachineModel m,
list<SubtargetFeature> f,
+ list<SubtargetFeature> tunef = []> :
ProcessorModel<n,m,f,tunef>;
----------------
As for ProcessorModels for tuning, `list<SubtargetFeature> f` is always empty
in both upstream and our downstream, and it is unlikely that we will specify
target features for tune models. So it can be a default argument with value
`[]` and swap the position of `f` and `tunef`(we are more likely to specify
tune features). It becomes:
```
class RISCVTuneProcessorModel<string n, SchedMachineModel m,
list<SubtargetFeature> tunef = [],
list<SubtargetFeature> f = []> : ProcessorModel<n,m,f,tunef>;
```
@craig.topper Any thoughts on this?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137517/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137517
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
