> On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:24 AM, James Molloy <james.mol...@arm.com> wrote: > > jmolloy added a subscriber: jmolloy. > jmolloy added a comment. > > Hi Akira, > > I'm sorry to be contrary (and I missed the discussion on Tuesday because I > was away on vacation) but I think there *is* a usecase for -mno-restrict-it > to work, and I would hate to see it broken. > > Non-restricted IT blocks are indeed deprecated for ARMv8 in the ARMARM. But > there are circumstances where you may still want to emit them - the biggest > example being you're compiling for a CPU microarchitecture that you *know* > doesn't have a performance penalty on non-restricted IT blocks. Restricted IT > blocks can pessimize code quite badly in some circumstances, and allowing > people to turn it off for their target if needed is very important, IMO.
If such microarchitectures exist, shouldn’t they be represented properly as a CPU in the backend and get the right setting by default? > > Cheers, > > James > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D10414 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
