arphaman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41087#956379, @bob.wilson wrote:
> I'm concerned here about the check for the names as written vs. the canonical > names. @compnerd pointed out one specific case with armv7, and I see that > you've got special handling for "darwin", but I think there are more. What > about "arm64" vs. the canonical "aarch64"? Look through the triple parsing > code in Triple.cpp and I'm pretty sure you'll find more. I had been thinking > about using the canonical names. However, that's not ideal either because the > canonical names intentionally exclude suffixes that some users may want to > distinguish (e.g., armv7 vs armv7k). Ah, you're right. I should just check the arch instead of the arch name and the subarch too (for the "arm64" vs "aarch64"). I fixed that in r320853. I believe that other similar arch cases are already handled when there's no subarch. I think that the other component that's troubling is environment because of the version number. I fixed that in r320854. The "armv7" and "armv7k" will have to stay separate I think. If "armv7k" is the target arch then the user would either have to check for `__is_target_arch(arm)` or `__is_target_arch(armv7k)`, and `__is_target_arch(armv7)` will fail. That seems reasonable to me though. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D41087 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
