abidh wrote: > Thanks for the pointer. However, the description doesn't appear to have > sufficient information to justify the `--gcc-toolchain=` dependent decision. > A toolchain should be selected completely from the target triple. I think > `RISCVToolChain` should be adjusted to either select a different target > triple, or (I am sorry to say this) be removed, since some choices (`crt0.o` > `-lgloss`) are strange. It can be added back when we sort out the use cases > we want to support and ensure that it doesn't get in the way for users who > don't provide `crt0.o` `-lgloss`. More likely, we really don't need this > RISCVToolChain and can satisfy the user need with a configuration file. > > If there is a multilib selection need, participate in the discussion of > Clang-based multilib https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-multilib/67494 > > > So in the toolchain selection code, I have made this dependency of > > RISCVToolChain on gcc toolchain explicit. It is created if gcc-toolchain > > option is present. Otherwise Baremetal toolchain is created. I will be > > happy to hear if there is a better way to choose between these two > > toolchains. > > @abidh
IIRC the RISCVToolChain was handling the case where clang is used with a gcc sysroot. My aim was to not break the workflow of existing users of RISCVToolChain. But I agree that handling same triple in 2 places is not right. We may be able to do what RISCVToolChain is doing with some modification in BareMetal.cpp and using configuration files. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71803 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
