================
@@ -4290,6 +4291,18 @@ class FirConverter : public
Fortran::lower::AbstractConverter {
assert(blockId == 0 && "invalid blockId");
assert(activeConstructStack.empty() && "invalid construct stack state");
+ // Set target_cpu and target_features attributes to be passed through to
the
+ // llvm.func operation during lowering.
+ const llvm::TargetMachine &targetMachine = bridge.getTargetMachine();
+ if (auto targetCPU = targetMachine.getTargetCPU(); !targetCPU.empty())
+ func->setAttr("target_cpu",
+ mlir::StringAttr::get(func.getContext(), targetCPU));
+
+ if (auto targetFeatures = targetMachine.getTargetFeatureString();
+ !targetFeatures.empty())
+ func->setAttr("target_features", mlir::LLVM::TargetFeaturesAttr::get(
+ func.getContext(), targetFeatures));
----------------
kiranchandramohan wrote:
The default question here would be whether we are going to use this information
in HLFIR/FIR transformations and if not whether it is better to delay adding
this information closer to conversion to LLVM dialect or potentially later.
If it is closer to conversion to LLVM dialect then you might be able to reuse
the pass that added `frame-pointer` attribute.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74598
Please wait for opinion from others as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78289
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
