================
@@ -2854,10 +2854,121 @@ void CodeGenFunction::EmitMultiVersionResolver(
case llvm::Triple::aarch64:
EmitAArch64MultiVersionResolver(Resolver, Options);
return;
+ case llvm::Triple::riscv32:
+ case llvm::Triple::riscv64:
+ EmitRISCVMultiVersionResolver(Resolver, Options);
+ return;
default:
- assert(false && "Only implemented for x86 and AArch64 targets");
+ assert(false && "Only implemented for x86, AArch64 and RISC-V targets");
+ }
+}
+
+void CodeGenFunction::EmitRISCVMultiVersionResolver(
+ llvm::Function *Resolver, ArrayRef<MultiVersionResolverOption> Options) {
+
+ if (getContext().getTargetInfo().getTriple().getOS() !=
+ llvm::Triple::OSType::Linux) {
+ CGM.getDiags().Report(diag::err_os_unsupport_riscv_target_clones);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ llvm::BasicBlock *CurBlock = createBasicBlock("resolver_entry", Resolver);
+ Builder.SetInsertPoint(CurBlock);
+ EmitRISCVCpuInit();
+
+ bool SupportsIFunc = getContext().getTargetInfo().supportsIFunc();
+ bool HasDefault = false;
+ unsigned DefaultIndex = 0;
+ // Check the each candidate function.
+ for (unsigned Index = 0; Index < Options.size(); Index++) {
----------------
preames wrote:
There's a semantic problem here unless I'm missing something. Say the user
specifies three choices: default, zba, and zba+zbb (in that order.) Unless I'm
missing something, the third case would be dead here which is almost certainly
not what the user intended. How do other targets handle this case?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85786
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
