[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D139102: [AArch64] Inline AArch64TargetParser.def

tmatheson closed this revision. tmatheson added a comment. Landed as part of f4225d325c19ae0e5dbe39faa900d81e24559da0 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139102/new/ h

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D139102: [AArch64] Inline AArch64TargetParser.def

tmatheson updated this revision to Diff 479598. tmatheson added a comment. Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Update lldb test Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139102/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D1

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D139102: [AArch64] Inline AArch64TargetParser.def

tmatheson added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere. > And this is the file that was being generated: > https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/c86589a738e5053a26b2be7d156bcfee1565f00b/lib/std/target/aarch64.zig Thanks for the heads up. It looks like that file hasn't been updated for

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D139102: [AArch64] Inline AArch64TargetParser.def

DavidSpickett accepted this revision. DavidSpickett added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > If some script _is_ manually parsing the .def, it ought to be easy enough to > update it to read the .cpp instead (it probably shouldn't do either). True. Hopefully the target

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D139102: [AArch64] Inline AArch64TargetParser.def

DavidSpickett added a comment. And thanks for bringing the test up to date in general! (that test is less checking the disassembler, more a reference of what lldb should be capable of, though it has found some bugs) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://rev

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D139102: [AArch64] Inline AArch64TargetParser.def

andrewrk added a comment. In D139102#3963388 , @DavidSpickett wrote: > > @andrewrk I seem to remember that Zig uses these files for generating > compiler options of its own? A basic search didn't show anything but we'd > better check if you're usin