arphaman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/Lex/PPMacroExpansion.cpp:1923 + Tok, *this, diag::err_feature_check_malformed); + return II ? getTargetInfo().getTriple().getArchName().equals_lower( + II->getName()) ---------------- compnerd wrote: > arphaman wrote: > > compnerd wrote: > > > Hmm, the one thing to consider here is the canonicalized vs spelt target. > > > e.g. `armv7-windows` will map to `thumbv7-unknown-windows-msvc`. > > I think it's ok to only allow "thumb" check to succeed instead of "arm", > > otherwise how would we differentiate between the two? However, we should > > take the sub arch into account, so when arch is "thumbv7", these checks > > should succeed: > > > > ``` > > __is_target_arch(thumb) > > __is_target_arch(thumbv7) > > ``` > > > > but this one should fail: > > > > ``` > > __is_target_arch(thumbv6) > > ``` > > > > I fixed this in the updated patch. > I'm considering the scenario where the user specifies `-target armv7-windows` > and the `__is_target_arch(thumb)` passes but `__is_target_arch(arm)` fails. > Is that really what people would expect? I suppose `__is_target_arch(arm)` should probably work in that case too, especially seeing that we define the ARM macros already. The users would just have to differentiate between thumb and non-thumb by checking if `__is_target_arch(thumb)` succeeds too. https://reviews.llvm.org/D41087 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
