rmaprath added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21991#474736, @compnerd wrote:
> I don't think that clang nor LLVM have much in terms of support for XScale. > Can we do something more convoluted perhaps? I like the preprocessor based > approach. However, if the compiler doesn't define it with the correct > target, we define it and push it into the CPPFLAGS. This way, in the future, > we can rely on the compiler to do the right thing and eventually lose the > cmake magic. Sounds good to me. Just to confirm, we keep the cmake option and make it define `__ARM_WMMX` instead of `_LIBUNWIND_ARM_WMMX`? Or did you mean we try to figure it out based on the target? I think the latter would be very complicated; WMMX is not an architectural feature but an extension supported on some processors (like the PXA series: http://www.marvell.com/application-processors/pxa-family/). WDYT? Thanks. / Asiri http://reviews.llvm.org/D21991 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
