REPOSITORY
rL LLVM
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:1213
@@ -1203,1 +1212,3 @@
.Case("crypto", HasP8Crypto)
+ .Case("IsPwr7Up", IsPwr7Up)
+ .Case("IsISA206Up", IsPwr7Up)
----------------
nemanjai wrote:
> wschmidt wrote:
> > These strings should not be capitalized, to maintain consistency. As in
> > the other review, I'm not excited about the name.
> >
> > I really question whether these should be features. Doesn't that imply
> > that these become things that can be controlled independently as -mattr=+/-
> > for llc? I don't think we want that.
> Good point about the capitalization. I just used the same names as the bool
> variables. I can change this.
>
> Regarding the second point, I was careful not to expose these features
> outside of the target info. They will not become features that have a
> corresponding Clang option nor will they give the user any control over
> turning these on/off. This just provides a string-based query for the data
> members that I added. Essentially, this is a unified "getter" that provides a
> name-based query.
> All that being said, I do see your point. Everything else in this
> string->bool map is an actual feature that a user has control over. These new
> ones deviate from that. I am open to suggestions on how to achieve what we
> are trying to achieve here (namely, control over exposing builtins for
> non-optional instructions).
Also, please keep the existing naming convention for these (lowercase, etc.),
and we don't need all of the aliases. How about just adding features for
'isa-2.06', 'isa-2.07', etc.?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8398
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
