chrisnc wrote: > There's quite a lot of test changes that I presume needed to make
FWIW, virtually all of the test changes were due to cases where LLVM would silently use soft-float despite the hard-float ABI being explicitly requested, which is exactly the incorrect behavior that this PR is meant to fix. The total number of affected test cases is fairly small. > and at least the LTO use case looks like we don't want to require extra > information. The direct invocation of llvm-lto case without target information is one I will look into, however, this change was made again because llvm was generating code in a manner where the hard-float ABI was requested but couldn't be fulfilled. Anywhere that might be happening can lead to unsound ABI-mixing. To me the question is whether the equivalent of that command is invoked internally without the correct target information in typical usage of LTO driven by clang/lld. I'm inclined to say no, based on there being zero other test failures related to this change, but I will do some digging to understand the situation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111334 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
