> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Atanasyan [mailto:si...@atanasyan.com] > Sent: 04 August 2017 11:29 > To: Simon Dardis > Cc: Clang Commits > Subject: Re: r308619 - Reland "[mips] Teach the driver to accept -m(no- > )gpopt." > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Simon Dardis via cfe-commits <cfe- > comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Reland "[mips] Teach the driver to accept -m(no-)gpopt." > > > > This patch teaches the driver to pass -mgpopt by default to the > > backend when it is supported, i.e. we are using -mno-abicalls. > > [...] > > > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp > > URL: > > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Cl > > ang.cpp?rev=308619&r1=308618&r2=308619&view=diff > > > ========================================================== > ============ > > ======== > > --- cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp (original) > > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp Thu Jul 20 07:04:12 2017 > > @@ -1462,6 +1462,30 @@ void Clang::AddMIPSTargetArgs(const ArgL > > A->claim(); > > } > > > > + Arg *GPOpt = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_mgpopt, > > + options::OPT_mno_gpopt); Arg *ABICalls = > > + Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_mabicalls, > > + options::OPT_mno_abicalls); > > + > > + // -mabicalls is the default for many MIPS environments, even with -fno- > pic. > > + // -mgpopt is the default for static, -fno-pic environments but > > + these two // options conflict. We want to be certain that > > + -mno-abicalls -mgpopt is // the only case where -mllvm -mgpopt is > passed. > > + // NOTE: We need a warning here or in the backend to warn when - > mgpopt is > > + // passed explicitly when compiling something with -mabicalls > > + // (implictly) in affect. Currently the warning is in the backend. > > + bool NoABICalls = > > + ABICalls && > > + ABICalls->getOption().matches(options::OPT_mno_abicalls); > > What about N64 ABI + non-PIC code? In that case we pass the `+noabicalls` > feature flag to the backend by default regardless of -mabicalls / -mnoabicalls > options. Should we assign `true` to the NoABICalls in that case too to be > consistent?
Yes, I think we should. I'll write a patch for this. Thanks, Simon > > -- > Simon Atanasyan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits