awarzynski added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Flang.cpp:133
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-O3");
+ TC.getDriver().Diag(diag::warn_O4_is_O3);
+ } else {
----------------
peixin wrote:
> Nit: I have committed D126164, and you can rebase and use D directly, which
> is the style in `Clang.cpp`.
Thanks for the heads up and for seeing https://reviews.llvm.org/D126164
through! I'll update it now before I forget :)
================
Comment at: flang/include/flang/Frontend/CodeGenOptions.def:12
+// Optionally, the user may also define ENUM_CODEGENOPT (for options
+// that have enumeration type and VALUE_CODEGENOPT is a code
+// generation option that describes a value rather than a flag.
----------------
rovka wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the difference between CODEGENOPT and
> VALUE_CODEGENOPT. Is it that CODEGENOPT is actually a kind of
> BOOL_CODEGENOPT, that should always have just 1 bit? Do we really need both?
At one point I convinved myself that I understand the difference, but now I'm
re-rereading Clang's [[
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/include/clang/Basic/CodeGenOptions.def
| CodeGenOptions.def ]] and I also see ... no difference 😂 .
Thanks for pointing this out! Let me remove it.
================
Comment at: flang/include/flang/Frontend/CodeGenOptions.def:25
+
+#ifndef ENUM_CODEGENOPT
+# define ENUM_CODEGENOPT(Name, Type, Bits, Default) \
----------------
rovka wrote:
> This isn't used yet, can we skip it?
Yup, good suggestion!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128043/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128043
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
