echristo added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703652, @uweigand wrote:
> 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. They didn't used to, I arranged it so that they did (technically breaking gcc compatibility) a while ago. > 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. No, just faltivec. > 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 ... No, remove faltivec and move forward with -maltivec/-mno-altivec but you should be able to remove a lot of the special handling at that point. https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
