uweigand added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703442, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703398, @echristo wrote: > > > Different suggestion: > > > > Remove the faltivec option. Even gcc doesn't support it anymore afaict. > > > What are you suggesting? Always having the language extensions on? Or > explicitly tying the language extensions to the underlying target feature? I'm a bit confused by this discussion. -faltivec and -maltivec are simply aliases, they do exactly the same thing; the clang-internal variable OPT_faltivec indicates the use of either -faltivec or -maltivec. Is the suggestion to remove that flag completely, i.e. both -maltivec and -faltivec? This seems strange to me since -maltivec is used in many Makefiles etc. that would break if clang suddenly refused to accept the option. Or is the suggestion to simply remove the alias -faltivec, and leave -maltivec as-is? I'd be less opposed to this since it probably breaks fewer users ... but I'm still not quite sure what it actually buys us. And in any case the patch currently under discussion here would still be necessary then, to fix -maltivec -mno-altivec ... https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
