mstorsjo added a comment. In D68939#1708020 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68939#1708020>, @labath wrote:
> In D68939#1707998 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68939#1707998>, @mstorsjo wrote: > > > In D68939#1707985 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68939#1707985>, @labath wrote: > > > > > Would you say that "pc" is a reasonable value for the "vendor" field for > > > the win+aarch64 combo? I am asking because I don't have a clue about > > > that, and given that this platform is being brought up right now, > > > changing this now would be way easier than doing it later. (The reason > > > why things don't work is the incompatibility between the two things that > > > compute the ArchSpec, but that can also be fixed by changing the other > > > mechanism, if that is better/more correct.) My guess is the other > > > mechanism is ArchSpec::SetArchitecture function, line 928... > > > > > > I'd say "pc" is fine here; such machines are available for sale (although > > with a bit scarce availability) as normal power efficient laptops - google > > for e.g. HP Envy X2, for one that is available with both arm and x86 cpu > > options. > > > So, am I correct to assume that "pc" is used/can be used for any "personal > computer"? I was under the impression that pc stands for the PCs which are > descended/compatible with the original IBM PCs... I don't really know TBH - in that case it should only be valid on x86... Is there any canonical definition anywhere? Not sure if it has any practical effect anywhere though, other than making the triples different, messing up this case. I guess the alternative would be to remove line 928 in ArchSpec.cpp. I can test that to see if it fixes the issue later tonight. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68939/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68939 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
