================
@@ -179,6 +179,13 @@ void sparc::getSparcTargetFeatures(const Driver &D, const
ArgList &Args,
Features.push_back("-hard-quad-float");
}
+ if (Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_mv8plus, options::OPT_mno_v8plus))
{
+ if (A->getOption().matches(options::OPT_mv8plus))
----------------
s-barannikov wrote:
> In that case, would making these a no-op flag okay for now? As far as I
> understand it that would still be a compliant implementation, no?
AFAIK it is an ABI affecting flag, although I don't know if it changes anything
except for ELF header's e_machine field compared to 32-bit V8/V9. It can't
safely be ignored if we claim support for V8+. If we don't, and V8+ is
otherwise compatible with 32-bit ABI, I think ignoring it and generating
instructions should be fine, probably with a warning.
> Codegen, etc. changes will happen in future patches but I can amend this one
> to include a placeholder `v8plus` feature bit in the backend.
>
> What do you think about it?
I have little experience in target feature bits. It could be helpful to have a
draft that adds some V8+ support to the backend and the corresponding feature
bits.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98713
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
