shiva0217 added a comment. In D57497#1921497 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497#1921497>, @lenary wrote:
> In D57497#1920870 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497#1920870>, @shiva0217 wrote: > > > In D57497#1920097 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497#1920097>, @apazos wrote: > > > > > Thanks Shiva, I res-ynced and rebuilt the patch. It is working fine. > > > > > > I see there is a msmall-data-threshold flag used by Mips and Hexagon, and > > > now we are adding a new flag msmall-data-limit. Should't we reuse the > > > flag? > > > > > > Hi Ana, > > Thanks for trying the patch. msmall-data-limit is also a RISCV GCC flag, > > so I would recommend using the same flag as GCC. > > > How hard would it be to use the `-msmall-data-threshold` flag work if a > `-msmall-data-limit` flag is not provided? I think it won't be hard, users just need to find the same semantic flags when switching between LLVM and GCC. If we use the same flag for the same functionality, we could avoid the effort. Does it sound reasonable? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57497 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
