fhahn added a comment. In D113779#3130853 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113779#3130853>, @paulwalker-arm wrote:
> Rather than adding connivence options after the fact what about allowing > `-march=` to be specified multiple times? The first must be the usual format > with later ones required to start with `+`. The defined parsing behaviour > would be as if there was a single `-march` instance positioned at the first > occurrence but containing the value of all instances when combined from left > to right. For example `-march=armv8.4-a ...... -march=+nofp16` or perhaps > `+=` syntax like `-march=armv8.4-a ...... -march+=nofp16+nosve` is more > intuitive? I think that would be a convenient option which wouldn't require us to add a lot of new options, which would be quite cumbersome. But to address the main issues (providing a purely additive way to specify features) I think we would need to allow `-march=+feature`, without any preceding `-march=armvXXX`. In D113779#3131569 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113779#3131569>, @manojgupta wrote: > Yes, the current approach of "-march=<isa>+feature" is terrible and does not > work with developers who want flexibility of features. This being pitched as > a feature imo is akin to promoting a design bug as a feature. > Any additive or subtractive alternative is welcome. I wouldn't go so far as to call the current `-march` handling terrible, but I think there are valid use cases that cannot be addressed with it, as per the current discussion. As you said, providing some way specify features additively without also committing to a specific architecture version would be desirable for our users IMO. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113779/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113779 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
