steven_wu added a comment.
Thanks for doing this. I think module flag is a good idea. Some comments inline.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/svml-calls.ll:16
+
+define void @sin_f64(double* nocapture %varray) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @sin_f64(
----------------
Personally, I think codegen tests like this will be cleaner to keep in LLVM.
Clang tests just test the IRGen of the module flag and LLVM tests check that
those flags are respected and module flag merge is respected.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/LTO/LTOBackend.cpp:221
+static TargetLibraryInfoImpl *createTLII(Module &Mod, TargetMachine *TM) {
+ TargetLibraryInfoImpl *TLII =
----------------
Should this be done not just for LTOBackend but for regular compilation as
well? LegacyCodegenerator and llc can all be benefit from a matching
TargetLibraryInfo?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60162/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60162
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
