thakis marked an inline comment as done. thakis added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/utils/gn/secondary/llvm/triples.gni:10 +} else { + assert(false, "missing host_cpu " + host_cpu) } ---------------- phosek wrote: > I don't think `host_cpu` would ever be missing since it's detected by GN > (unless it's a new architecture that GN doesn't recognize), should this > rather be `unsupported host_cpu` or something along those lines? "missing" as in "this is missing code here". "unsupported" doesn't seem quite right since the whole GN build is unsupported :-) And if someone needs a new host_cpu, they can just send a patch. `"not-yet-implemented host_cpu " + host_cpu`? I don't think the exact error string is super important though. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56095/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56095 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits