================
@@ -659,13 +659,21 @@ llvm::ARM::FPUKind arm::getARMTargetFeatures(const Driver
&D,
CPUArgFPUKind != llvm::ARM::FK_INVALID ? CPUArgFPUKind :
ArchArgFPUKind;
(void)llvm::ARM::getFPUFeatures(FPUKind, Features);
} else {
+ bool Generic = true;
if (!ForAS) {
std::string CPU = arm::getARMTargetCPU(CPUName, ArchName, Triple);
+ if (CPU != "generic")
+ Generic = false;
llvm::ARM::ArchKind ArchKind =
arm::getLLVMArchKindForARM(CPU, ArchName, Triple);
FPUKind = llvm::ARM::getDefaultFPU(CPU, ArchKind);
(void)llvm::ARM::getFPUFeatures(FPUKind, Features);
}
+ if (Generic && (Triple.isOSWindows() || Triple.isOSDarwin()) &&
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
I don't see folks being very happy about backporting anything that would add a
potentially breaking change, even if it does fix another issue in the process.
If you were to split out the ForAS change, would that be targeted enough to fix
@anemet 's issue, or would that backport be just as impactful as
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134366 ?
(we can more likely justify a "worse" fix on 20.x given that main will get a
comprehensive fix)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122095
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
