[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-26 Thread Tom Stellard via llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/tstellar closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81857 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-26 Thread Tom Stellard via llvm-branch-commits
tstellar wrote: I've decided to merge this. A feature like this that is self-contained in a single backend is inline with the kind of changes I've merged before during the RC phase. If this were some other feature, with a wider impact, it probably wouldn't be accepted.

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-23 Thread Aaron Ballman via llvm-branch-commits
AaronBallman wrote: > > I'm OK with this kind of change if the AArch64 maintainers are on board. > > @AaronBallman Do you have a strong objection to this PR? > > We don't typically backport _features_ unless there's some strongly > compelling case. This sounds like a nice-to-have but I'm not

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-23 Thread Aaron Ballman via llvm-branch-commits
AaronBallman wrote: > I'm OK with this kind of change if the AArch64 maintainers are on board. > @AaronBallman Do you have a strong objection to this PR? We don't typically backport *features* unless there's some strongly compelling case. This sounds like a nice-to-have but I'm not certain

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-22 Thread Tom Stellard via llvm-branch-commits
tstellar wrote: I'm OK with this kind of change if the AArch64 maintainers are on board. @AaronBallman Do you have a strong objection to this PR? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81857 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-22 Thread Philipp Tomsich via llvm-branch-commits
ptomsich wrote: > > On a different note: the "+pauth" fix would be helpful in clang-18 as well, > > given that it brings the definition of "-march=armv8.3-a" in sync with the > > specification. > > OK, so sounds like the +pauth change is separate but included in this PR for > convenience.

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-22 Thread Tom Stellard via llvm-branch-commits
tstellar wrote: > On a different note: the "+pauth" fix would be helpful in clang-18 as well, > given that it brings the definition of "-march=armv8.3-a" in sync with the > specification. OK, so sounds like the +pauth change is separate but included in this PR for convenience.

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-22 Thread Philipp Tomsich via llvm-branch-commits
ptomsich wrote: On a different note: the "+pauth" fix would be helpful in clang-18 as well, given that it brings the definition of "-march=armv8.3-a" in sync with the specification. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81857 ___

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-22 Thread Philipp Tomsich via llvm-branch-commits
ptomsich wrote: > > Is this fixing a regression introduced in Clang 18? I'm wondering why the > > backport is needed in the first place, as this seems to be making > > potentially significant changes during the RC ("Make +pauth enabled in > > Armv8.3-a by default"). > > It is adding new CPU

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-22 Thread David Green via llvm-branch-commits
davemgreen wrote: > Is this fixing a regression introduced in Clang 18? I'm wondering why the > backport is needed in the first place, as this seems to be making potentially > significant changes during the RC ("Make +pauth enabled in Armv8.3-a by > default"). It is adding new CPU support to

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-20 Thread Aaron Ballman via llvm-branch-commits
AaronBallman wrote: Is this fixing a regression introduced in Clang 18? I'm wondering why the backport is needed in the first place, as this seems to be making potentially significant changes during the RC ("Make +pauth enabled in Armv8.3-a by default").

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-20 Thread David Green via llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/davemgreen approved this pull request. I believe considering what this changes it should be OK. LGTM https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81857 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-19 Thread Tom Stellard via llvm-branch-commits
tstellar wrote: Is this ready to merge? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81857 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-19 Thread Philipp Tomsich via llvm-branch-commits
ptomsich wrote: > This is a fairly big patch to backport. The ampere1b changes should be safe > enough considering as it just adds support for an extra CPU. There is also > the change from #78027 added for changing how PAUTH is enabled. We can drop the dependency on #78027, if we modify the

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-19 Thread David Green via llvm-branch-commits
davemgreen wrote: This is a fairly big patch to backport. The ampere1b changes should be safe enough considering as it just adds support for an extra CPU. There is also the change from #78027 added for changing how PAUTH is enabled. @atrosinenko @DavidSpickett do you think that is OK to

[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [llvm] release/18.x: [AArch64] Backport Ampere1B support (#81297 , #81341, and #81744) (PR #81857)

2024-02-16 Thread Philipp Tomsich via llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/ptomsich edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81857 ___ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits