https://github.com/tmatheson-arm closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90320
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
tmatheson-arm wrote:
Thanks for the comments everyone. Given that this requires an IR break and
additions to the importer, and there is still some question about which way to
go with the renaming (i.e. FEAT_ names or user-facing names) I think it makes
sense to defer renaming until later. For
davemgreen wrote:
Rust
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/79734f1db8dbe322192dea32c0f6b80ab14c4c1d/compiler/rustc_codegen_llvm/src/llvm_util.rs#L229)
and zig
(https://github.com/ziglang/zig/blob/44db92d1ca90c9cfdfb29fe46f04ff8f11c80901/lib/std/Target/aarch64.zig#L43)
are two examples of
jthackray wrote:
> The command-line names or FEAT_ names should probably be what we are aiming
> for if we are changing them one-way or the other.
Yes, standardising on FEAT_* names would be good to match the TRM, so we avoid
the
AEK_PREDRES/FEAT_SPECRES, AEK_PERFMON/FEAT_PMUv3, etc. mismatche
davemgreen wrote:
@tmatheson-arm reached out and we have a bit of a conversation internally. I do
think that there is too much going on in this one pr to be sensible to review,
but from what I've looked at my main points I think are:
- Some AEK names get renamed in ways I would not expect them
davemgreen wrote:
> This is already split into 18 commits, I don't think there's any reason to
> split it into 18 PRs, since comments on one of them likely apply to the
> others.
I disagree. This is going to be awkward for a lot of users of llvm and contains
at least some details I don't agre
ostannard wrote:
@davemgreen This is already split into 18 commits, I don't think there's any
reason to split it into 18 PRs, since comments on one of them likely apply to
the others.
@tmatheson-arm I don't know if there's any more specific precedent for changing
target feature names, but I t
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff d9fc5babb96ca9c75f36f9cf3d3f2a55ddc0ab4d
5db47b54f49943072a2b787fc64b92f1e9c4f21c --
davemgreen wrote:
IMO This patch looks far too large to sensibly review and needs to be split up.
A lot of the changes don't really looks like mechanical renamings, and it is
hard to see how they would not break existing uses of llvm arch64 target
features?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-projec
https://github.com/jthackray approved this pull request.
LGTM (presumably these were mechanically renamed, given the diff size).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90320
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llv
https://github.com/tmatheson-arm edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90320
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
sdkrystian wrote:
@tmatheson-arm This breaks builds without the `AArch64` target enabled (e.g.
`LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86` )
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90320
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.o
https://github.com/tmatheson-arm edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90320
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
13 matches
Mail list logo
