xry111 added a comment. In D149946#4324877 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149946#4324877>, @SixWeining wrote:
> In D149946#4324803 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149946#4324803>, @xen0n wrote: > >> From a LoongArch developer's perspective, it may be better to only enable >> UAL for LA464 and other supporting models, instead of for the generic >> `loongarch64` model too. This is because although all server- and >> desktop-class LoongArch models have UAL, the embedded-class (Loongson-1 and >> Loongson-2 series' older models) doesn't, and some of them e.g. Loongson >> 2K1000LA are readily available on the market so they're arguably relevant. >> We don't want to generate misaligned memory accesses for those systems only >> to fall back to much slower emulation later. > > If so, CPUs that support UAL will not benefit from this feature in default > build (i.e. without -march or -mcpu or -mtune being specified). > > Does `generic` model mean the `lowest` model or the `most popular` model? Technically `generic` should mean the `lowest`. But as a desktop user, frankly I don't want to pay the extra cost for 2K models. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149946/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149946 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
