>>! In D6134#4, @craig.topper wrote: > Why have avx, fma4, and sse4a been added to CK_BDVER1? xop implies all of > those. Can we use comments instead?
Sure, I will remove the redundant calls to setFeatureEnabledImpl that set avx,fma4,sse4a. I originally added those features mainly for clarity reason (to make more explicit that the target has avx). I agree that adding a comment is much better. I will add a comment on top of the call that sets feature 'xop' for bdver1 that simply says "xop implies avx, fma4 and sse4a". http://reviews.llvm.org/D6134 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
