glaubitz marked an inline comment as done. glaubitz added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/Sparc.cpp:246-256 + if (getTriple().getOS() == llvm::Triple::Linux) { Builder.defineMacro("__sparc_v9__"); - Builder.defineMacro("__sparcv9__"); + } else { + Builder.defineMacro("__sparcv9"); + // Solaris doesn't need these variants, but the BSDs do. + if (getTriple().getOS() != llvm::Triple::Solaris) { + Builder.defineMacro("__sparc64__"); ---------------- ro wrote: > glaubitz wrote: > > jrtc27 wrote: > > > This doesn't need changing, we can define more things than GCC to keep it > > > simple. > > Well, my original intent was to match GCC to make sure we're 100% > > compatible and I would like to keep it that way. > I agree with Jessica here: you're creating a complicated maze for no real > gain. Besides, have you checked what `gcc` on the BSDs really does? They > often neglect to get their changes upstream and what's in the gcc repo > doesn't necessarily represent what they actually use. Yes, I have verified that GCC behaves the exact same way as this change and I don't see any reason not to mimic the exact same behavior in clang for maximum compatibility. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98574/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98574 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits