jojo added inline comments. ================ Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:707 @@ -696,3 +706,3 @@ std::string MArch = arm::getARMArch(ArchName, Triple); - if (llvm::ARM::parseArch(MArch) == llvm::ARM::AK_INVALID || + if (!checkARMArchValid(MArch) || llvm::ARM::parseArch(MArch) == llvm::ARM::AK_INVALID || (Split.second.size() && !DecodeARMFeatures(D, Split.second, Features))) ---------------- bsmith wrote: > Why do we need the call to checkARMArchValid here? Isn't is sufficient that > parseArch returns a valid architecture? Let the TargetParser return correct result.Remove this in the next patchset.
================ Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:2280 @@ -2276,12 +2279,3 @@ - if (Split.first == "armv8-a" || Split.first == "armv8a") { - // ok, no additional features. - } else if (Split.first == "armv8.1-a" || Split.first == "armv8.1a") { - Features.push_back("+v8.1a"); - } else if (Split.first == "armv8.2-a" || Split.first == "armv8.2a" ) { - Features.push_back("+v8.2a"); - } else { - return false; - } - - if (Split.second.size() && !DecodeAArch64Features(D, Split.second, Features)) + if (!checkAArch64ArchValid(Split.first) || llvm::AArch64::parseArch(Split.first, Features) == llvm::ARM::AK_INVALID || + (Split.second.size() && !DecodeAArch64Features(D, Split.second, Features))) ---------------- bsmith wrote: > Same here, why do we need checkAArch64ArchValid? Same as above. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D20088 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits