craig.topper added a comment. In D155326#4502097 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155326#4502097>, @dtcxzyw wrote:
> 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). You're right it might take time, but we've been saying that's what needs to be done for a year. It might have been done by now if the work had gotten started. 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
