================
@@ -179,6 +179,13 @@ void sparc::getSparcTargetFeatures(const Driver &D, const
ArgList &Args,
Features.push_back("-hard-quad-float");
}
+ if (Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_mv8plus, options::OPT_mno_v8plus))
{
+ if (A->getOption().matches(options::OPT_mv8plus))
----------------
koachan wrote:
Ah, I see.
In that case, would making these a no-op flag okay for now? As far as I
understand it that would still be a compliant implementation, no? Codegen, etc.
changes will happen in future patches but I can amend this one to include a
placeholder `v8plus` feature bit in the backend.
What do you think about it?
(Some background: I am currently only looking to include this in clang because
Linux passes `-mv8plus` when building 32-bit objects since some of its inline
asm uses 64-bit registers, but otherwise it doesn't care if compiler-generated
code uses them or not)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98713
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
