FreddyYe added a comment. In D151696#4448680 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151696#4448680>, @FreddyYe wrote:
> In D151696#4448573 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151696#4448573>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> I think this is OK, I have a slight fear we're losing a bit of the 'tune' >> functionality, but it is not impossible that we've never really cared about >> that. One concern I have is that the list was used for the resolver >> function, but I don't see any test changes for that? Are we properly >> filtering out the features list somehow? > > Yes! Now there are no tests yet testing the resolver function influenced by > the feature list. I'll add another pre-commit test to show this. Added checks in https://reviews.llvm.org/D152989. pls help review. About the "-tune-cpu", I think it's ok to use the same name as the one that users specified in _cpu_specific(), after I supported those missing names in X86.td so that optimizer can now recognize them. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151696/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151696 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
