nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D137317#3905654 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137317#3905654>, @craig.topper wrote:
> 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. Makes sense; consider adding that additional information as context to the commit message @pengfei . 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
