smithp35 wrote: Whatever we choose to do I think clang and llvm should be consistent. There's no point in clang giving a warning if llvm is going to give an error.
I can see two positions most clearly: * clang gives an error message for an eabihf target (or -mfloat-abi=hard). This is what GCC does today. While we could also put an error in LLVM I'm not sure it is necessary. * clang gives a warning message for both eabihf target (of -mfloat-abi=hard) and uses -mfloat-abi=soft, the warning should ideally say that is changing ABI rather than just unsupported. We'd need to change LLVM to get the build attributes right. Personally I don't have a problem with clang giving an error in this case as that is what GCC does. Appendix, some empirical data: GCC 13 ``` arm-none-eabi-gcc -c -mcpu=cortex-m3 -mfloat-abi=hard float.c cc1: error: '-mfloat-abi=hard': selected architecture lacks an FPU ``` Clang -mfloat-abi ``` clang --target=arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-m3 float.c -c -mfloat-abi=hard clang: warning: '-mfloat-abi=hard': selected processor lacks floating point registers [-Wunsupported-abi] ``` Actual behaviour is soft-float but with incorrect build attributes. Clang --target=arm-none-eabihf ``` clang --target=arm-none-eabi -mcpu=cortex-m3 float.c -c -mfloat-abi=hard ``` Actual behaviour is soft-float but with incorrect build attributes. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111334 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
