dtcxzyw added a comment. In D155326#4501997 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155326#4501997>, @jrtc27 wrote:
> Why do you believe this is better than encoding it in the module's IR like > the ABI? - There is no module-level metadata for target CPU and sub-target features. So I just think that this patch is better than merging from **func-level** attributes like D142191 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142191>. - Clang passes `-plugin-opt=mcpu` to lld. Then lld builds `lto::Config` using `codegen::getCPUStr` and `codegen::getMAttrs` (both get the result from command args). It is taken for granted that clang passes `-plugin-opt=mattr` down to lld. If we introduce top-level fields like `target cpu` and `target features`, we should modify a lot of things (clang/llvm/lld). It can take a long time to migrate (like opaque pointers). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155326/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155326 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
