ychen added a comment. In D119301#3309140 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119301#3309140>, @lenary wrote:
> I don't fully understand the reasoning for the patch, and you haven't really > explained it. I think what you are saying is that the `IsAux` argument to > `getTargetFeatures` should be considered because it's `true` for offloading > to another compiler, but I don't understand why we think the offload compiler > is not clang-compatible, as the features added in `getAArch64TargetFeatures` > and `getARMTargetFeatures` (and passed to the offloaded compiler) use the > LLVM-specific internal names. I would like you to explain this further, and > to document what `IsAux` implies in the code. Apologies for the lack of explanation. My point is that `getAArch64TargetFeatures` / `getARMTargetFeatures` should only get the TargetFeatures, not adding compiler flags as a side effect, which belongs to clang's job construction. This makes code reuse harder. > That all said code given here is not equivalent to the feature as originally > landed, because you've only re-added the `-Wunaligned-access` flag for the > AArch64 target - please make the same addition in `Clang::AddARMTargetArgs` > as we want the warning on both. I think this also makes `CmdArgs` unused in > both `aarch64::getAArch64TargetFeatures` and `arm::getARMTargetFeatures` as I > think that you don't actually want us adding to `CmdArgs` in those functions > (again, I hope the full reasoning behind this will be explained when you > explain why the whole patch is necessary). Will do the same thing for `Clang::AddARMTargetArgs`. Thanks. I've tested this patch but not sure why the original test still passing without a `Clang::AddARMTargetArgs` change. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119301/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119301 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
