ArsenArsen wrote: (context: I work(ed) on managarm, but haven't interacted with the LLVM port on it nearly at all, and have never added targets to LLVM)
The `Kernel` environment probably was added is to mimic what gnuconfig does: ``` ~$ /usr/share/gnuconfig/config.sub x86_64-managarm-kernel x86_64-pc-managarm-kernel ~$ /usr/share/gnuconfig/config.sub x86_64-linux-kernel Invalid configuration 'x86_64-linux-kernel': 'linux' does not support 'kernel'. ~ 1 $ ``` It might be reasonable to constrain it to `managarm` (as gnuconfig does). > Does your OS need a different target triple for kernel development? Note that > almost all other OSes don't make the target triple distinction. It does for GCC, at least for libstdc++. I don't know how LLVM works, so I can't comment there. The kernel environment could also conceivably be a multilib of `*-*-managarm*-*` in general. I haven't done the work necessary to implement that in our GCC port yet, but it's been simmering in the back of my mind for a while. Generally, though, I don't buy that an OS triplet covers said OSes kernel. It seems simpler for kernel compilers to be kernel compilers (perhaps via multilib). WRT niche, I don't disagree - that's part of why I haven't upstreamed anything into GCC either. The other part is that I haven't worked enough on the port to consider myself confident in quality for inclusion (but that doesn't have an influence on the LLVM port) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
