kripken added a comment. In D77908#1977039 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77908#1977039>, @sbc100 wrote:
> As a less controversial version of this change I could instead create a new > CPU called `current` and leave `generic` as is (basically leave it at mvp) > until we can agree that a features is widespread enough to warrant being part > of generic? That makes a lot of sense to me. `current` or `current-spec` or such seems pretty clear. Then `generic` stays as it always was (at mvp) and that seems safer for the ecosystem. Btw, how does LLVM handle this issue with other backends? When say Intel releases a new CPU with a new feature, are those automatically applied in the `generic` CPU for Intel? (and hence people that want older CPUs will get breakage unless they change the CPU target) If those are automatically applied, at what frequency/policy? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77908/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77908 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
