jroelofs accepted this revision. jroelofs added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM ================ Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1613 def mcpu_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mcpu=">, Group<m_Group>; +def mmcu_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mmcu=">, Group<m_Group>; def mdynamic_no_pic : Joined<["-"], "mdynamic-no-pic">, Group<m_Group>; ---------------- Lekensteyn wrote: > dylanmckay wrote: > > Lekensteyn wrote: > > > jroelofs wrote: > > > > Would it make sense to have mcu be an alias for mcpu instead? > > > That would deviate from the GCC interface, so I have chosen for the > > > current situation: > > > ``` > > > $ avr-gcc -mmcu=avr2 -o /dev/null x.c > > > $ avr-gcc -mcpu=avr2 -o /dev/null x.c > > > avr-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mcpu=avr2' > > > $ avr-gcc -march=avr2 -o /dev/null x.c > > > avr-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-march=avr2' > > > $ avr-gcc -v > > > ... > > > gcc version 6.3.0 (GCC) > > > ``` > > I think @jroelofs means that it is possible to make `mmcu` an alias of > > `mmcu` internally. This would mean we wouldn't need to add AVR-specific > > `getCPUName` handling. > If mmcu is made an alias of mcpu, wouldn't that mean that both `-mcpu` and > `-mmcu` would be accepted by driver (undesirable)? > As far as I can see, `-target-cpu` must be passed to the frontend and > assembler, `-mcpu=` is not recognized as option. And ensuring that > `getCPUName` returns a non-empty string ensures that `-target-cpu` is passed. > > I am quite new to the internals, so please let me know if I misunderstood > something :-) -mmcu= is the right thing to do, without the alias (I was wrong). https://reviews.llvm.org/D29827 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
