vhscampos marked 2 inline comments as done. vhscampos added a comment. I will merge the two patches into one.
Please also see my inline responses. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/ARM.cpp:288 +static void appendNoFPUnsupportedFeatures(const arm::FloatABI ABI, + const unsigned FPUID, ---------------- chill wrote: > That's kinda mouthful name. Not sure how to compress it more without making it unmeaningful though. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Arch/ARM.cpp:292-297 + auto checkFPDisabledInArchName = [](const StringRef &ArchName) { + SmallVector<StringRef, 8> Split; + ArchName.split(Split, '+', -1, false); + return llvm::any_of( + Split, [](const StringRef &Extension) { return Extension == "nofp"; }); + }; ---------------- chill wrote: > chill wrote: > > Wouldn't just looking for the substring do the job? > > > > Also need to handle `-mcpu=...+nofp`. > > > > We already "parse" the arguments to `-march=` and `-mcpu=` (and `-mfpu=`) > > earlier, it seems to me we > > could note the `+nofp` and `+nofp.dp` earlier. (TBH, it isn't immediately > > obvious to me how to untangle this mess). > > > Hmm, actually, `+nofp.dp` should not disable the FPU, I think. Just looking for the substring might be sufficient indeed. Yes, we already do `-march`/`-mcpu` parsing a bit earlier. However, this parsing and the following handling of it is done deeper in the call stack. I wondered about ways to propagate this information back to this point here (e.g. adding one more by-ref argument that is set by the first round of parsing), but I don't feel confident to back it up. Are you okay with me just changing it to a substring search? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82948/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82948 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits