Thibault-Monnier wrote:

> I think llvm/clang as open-source compiler should encourage users who are 
> aware of performance to use more advanced -march.

@Andarwinux 
Most people do not compile their own version of Clang (and many distros prefer 
to remain backwards-compatible). The whole piont of this PR is to allow the 
performance gain to all users who support this feature rather than those who 
put their hands on a -march binary. You can still use -march which should 
(though MaskRay said otherwise?) not cause any regressions, so this seems like 
a net improvement to me.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180631
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to