craig.topper added a comment. In D137317#3905643 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137317#3905643>, @nickdesaulniers wrote:
> Seems fine, though looking at `llvm::X86::CPUKind`, why do you choose > `llvm::X86::CK_PentiumPro` as the lower bounds? Surely > `llvm::X86::CK_Pentium2` doesn't support CET? > > Does the backend already have an equivalent CPU target check that could be > reused by clang? My understanding was that the CET encodings reuse some encodings that have been equivalent to multibyte NOPs since PentiumPro. I think the intent was that a CET mitigated binary would still run on a CPU that didn't support CET. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137317/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
