skan added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:2012
+ ArgStringList &CmdArgs) {
+ if (const Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_malign_branch_boundary_EQ)) {
+ StringRef Value = A->getValue();
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> if (!TC.getTriple().isX86()) {
> D.Diag(diag::err_drv_unsupported_opt_for_target)
> << A->getAsString(Args) << TripleStr;
> return;
> }
>
> I will add Triple::isX86 in D72247.
Is this check necessary? `alignBranchesOptions` is only called by
`Clang::AddX86TargetArgs` and `ClangAs::AddX86TargetArgs`, so the triple is
always X86.
If `-target aarch64` is passed, `-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries` will not be
consumed and user can get an warning. So is `-malign-branch` etc.
> clang-10: warning: argument unused during compilation:
> '-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries' [-Wunused-command-line-argument]
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:2045
+
+ if (Args.hasFlag(options::OPT_mbranches_within_32B_boundaries,
+ options::OPT_mno_branches_within_32B_boundaries, false)) {
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> `OPT_mbranches_within_32B_boundaries` should provide default values which can
> be overridden by more specific options.
Currently, `-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries` is equivalent to
`-malign-branch-boundary=32 -malign-branch=fused+jcc+jmp
-malign-branch-prefix-size=4
What is expected behaviour would be very confusing if specific options could
override `-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries`. For example, if passed options are
```
-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries -malign-branch-boundary=32
-mno-branches-within-32B-boundaries
```
What should the value of `-malign-branch-boundary` be? Is it 32 or 0?
If we think `-mno-branches-within-32B-boundaries` is the negative form of
`-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries` , then `-malign-branch-boundary` should be
32.
Or if we think `-mno-branches-within-32B-boundaries` wins since it appears at
the end, and `-mno-branches-within-32B-boundaries` means no need to align
branches, `-malign-branch-boundary` should be 0.
As long as we don't support specific options could override
`-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries`, the trouble disappears :-)
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/intel-align-branch.c:28
+//
+// // RUN: %clang -target x86_64-unknown-unknown
-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries -### -c %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=CHECK-TOTAL
+// CHECK-TOTAL: "-mllvm" "-x86-align-branch-boundary=32" "-mllvm"
"-x86-align-branch=fused+jcc+jmp" "-mllvm" "-x86-align-branch-prefix-size=4"
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> Since you have a `-mno.. -m..` test, the `-m..` test is redundant.
Done
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/intel-align-branch.c:35
+// RUN: %clang -target x86_64-unknown-unknown -mbranches-within-32B-boundaries
-mno-branches-within-32B-boundaries -### -c %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
--check-prefix=CHECK-TOTAL3
+// CHECK-TOTAL3-NOT: "-mllvm" "-x86-align-branch-boundary=32" "-mllvm"
"-x86-align-branch=fused+jcc+jmp" "-mllvm" "-x86-align-branch-prefix-size=4"
----------------
MaskRay wrote:
> Add a `-target aarch64` test that other targets will get an error.
>
> (I am lazy and usually just write `-target x86_64` (generic ELF) and omit
> `-unknown-known`)
Currently, if `-target aarch64` is passed to clang, we will get a warning
> clang-10: warning: argument unused during compilation:
> '-mbranches-within-32B-boundaries' [-Wunused-command-line-argument]
Is this prompt not clear enough?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72227/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72227
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
