skan added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/attr-cpuspecific-cpus.c:12
+
+ATTR(cpu_specific(generic)) void CPU0(void){}
+ATTR(cpu_specific(pentium)) void CPU1(void){}
----------------
FreddyYe wrote:
> skan wrote:
> > Shouldn't we use the same function name?
> Emmm... it would involve a new problem that some aliased cpu names would
> result a diagnostic like this:
> ```
> definition with same mangled name 'CPU.H' as another definition
> ```
> This is expected but my original purpose here is only to check if cpu name
> strings are valid. If you prefer, I can change into a style that makes the
> non-alias CPU names use the same function and makes the aliased ones'
> function names indexed. WDYT?
That would make sense to me.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152989/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152989
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
