weimingz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36249#830645, @saugustine wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36249#830121, @weimingz wrote: > > > I tried to address it via checking pre-defined macros: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D31573 > > > > As long as the macros are defined correctly by clang, we don't need to > > worry about the specific target machine. How do you think about it? > > > I like the idea of a feature check, rather than a specific architecture > check--that is clearly the right thing to do. > > On the other hand, I would like to mark the test as unsupported and not run > in that case, rather than running it, saying it passed, but not actually > testing anything. That better reflects the state of the implementation. > Unfortunately, I don't think that can be done with macro checks. So my > preference would be this patch over https://reviews.llvm.org/D31573, but I > would also find https://reviews.llvm.org/D31573 acceptable if it came to that. > > Finally, 80-bit doubles are a bit of a historical artifact these days. Only > x86 and m68k have them (and not even all m68Ks either). So I don't think it > matters that much. I agree that showing the tests pass on architectures that doesn't actually test it is not meaningful. This patch LGTM. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D36249 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
