dmgreen added a comment. In D110258#3024418 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110258#3024418>, @david-arm wrote:
> Hi @dmgreen, would you be happy for me to do the splitting-out of arch and > tuning features in a separate follow-on patch? I think it's a good idea and I > don't object to doing it, but I'm not sure that it really needs to hold up > this initial patch? I personally think it makes sense to live in a separate > patch because it seems riskier in terms of possible effects on performance. > As far as I understand it, this isn't a functional requirement, but more for > completeness. I think that the `ARMProcFamily` subtarget features are really tuning features, which would mean that the AArch64Subtarget::initializeProperties would end up being based on tuning features and the code in D110259 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110259> would simplify as a result, not needing to pass TuneCPU around and check for specific cpus. We could change how that works code later, but I am a little worried about it being half finished, having tune-cpu not really working as it should but being required for some features. I would be fine as a separate patch so long as we are pretty confident that -mtune was going to work correctly before we start using it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110258/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110258 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
