asb wrote: > > Personally I don't like to add a privileged extension if it doesn't > > introduce new CSRs/instructions. > > I'd actually put that on the > [agenda](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G3ocHm2zE6AYTS2N3_3w2UxFnSEyKkcF57siLWe-NVs/edit?tab=t.0) > for today's sync-up call already. We did add the ones that are in the > profiles. I could see an argument for supporting everything as people can > then have a `-march` string that fully describes the target and don't need to > go and sort through which options to drop as they don't affect the compiler. > But I also see a counter-argument. I'll summarise anything relevant from the > sync-up call discussion here.
The conclusion was that nobody present saw a real argument against, feeling "why not" and as I mentioned above, it means people can just match the `-march` string to their CPU data sheet. Did you have a particular reason against adding such extensions? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111837 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
