================ @@ -402,6 +402,21 @@ // MCPU-SIFIVE-P670-SAME: "-target-feature" "+zvkt" // MCPU-SIFIVE-P670-SAME: "-target-abi" "lp64d" +// RUN: %clang -target riscv32 -### -c %s 2>&1 -mcpu=rp2350-hazard3 | FileCheck -check-prefix=MCPU-HAZARD3 %s +// MCPU-HAZARD3: "-target-cpu" "rp2350-hazard3" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+m" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+a" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+c" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+zicsr" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+zifencei" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+zcb" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+zcmp" +// MCPU-HAZARD3-SAME: "-target-feature" "+zba" ---------------- Wren6991 wrote:
Understood, thanks. Conversely, does specifying B on its own still allow feature test via the `__riscv_zba` etc macros? If not, what is the preferred way to detect the presence of e.g. Zba? The context is that I want to avoid mis-detection of the core not having ZbaZbbZbs due to future code only checking the B alias for those extensions, and vice versa. If the preferred construct is something like `#if defined(__riscv_b) || defined(__riscv_zba)` then the extensions specified in this PR look correct to me. However that sort of code is liable to break next time RISC-V introduces yet another extension alias (see also A vs Zalrsc/Zaamo, C vs Zca/Zcf/Zcd). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102452 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
