ksyx added a comment. In D102839#2775732 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102839#2775732>, @craig.topper wrote:
> Isn't the gcc name for this -mno-div? Should we be consistent? I am not sure whether using `-mno-div` might bring in some confusion since from the name `no-div` itself it expresses a sense of excluding all hardware division instructions, both float ones and integral ones, from my personal understanding. However, as in the documentation <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/RISC-V-Options.html>, it only affects the integral ones and float one was controlled by another. Thus for the clearance I used this naming. I have not much understanding about what compatibility with GCC we need to achieve but I am okay with both kinds of naming and changing this is totally ok if required. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/RISCV.cpp:154 + if (DisableHardwareIntDiv) { + Builder.defineMacro("__riscv_no_idiv"); } ---------------- craig.topper wrote: > Does gcc also have this define? Why do we need this in addition to not > defining __riscv_div. Ok. I will remove it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102839/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102839 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
