rampitec wrote: > Should just leave the subtarget feature name alone. It's not worth the > trouble, and this will now start spewing warnings on old IR (due to > unnecessary target-features spam clang should stop emitting). It really > should have been named 94-insts, but I think it's best to leave it alone
I agree we can keep feature name and all these 'gfx940' checks, just remove targets. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126763 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
