[clang] [clang] Support -Wa, options -mmsa and -mno-msa (PR #99615)

[Cinhi Young via cfe-commits]

@@ -2507,6 +2507,7 @@ static void CollectArgsForIntegratedAssembler(Compilation 
&C,
   bool Crel = false, ExperimentalCrel = false;
   bool UseRelaxRelocations = C.getDefaultToolChain().useRelaxRelocations();
   bool UseNoExecStack = false;
+  bool Msa = false;

Cyanoxygen wrote:

>  `-mno-msa` should lead to an error even on non-mips targets.

Assemblers accept this option, so I don't think we should throw an error when 
`-mno-msa` is used with MIPS targets.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99615
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Support -Wa, options -mmsa and -mno-msa (PR #99615)

[Cinhi Young via cfe-commits]

@@ -2507,6 +2507,7 @@ static void CollectArgsForIntegratedAssembler(Compilation 
&C,
   bool Crel = false, ExperimentalCrel = false;
   bool UseRelaxRelocations = C.getDefaultToolChain().useRelaxRelocations();
   bool UseNoExecStack = false;
+  bool Msa = false;

Cyanoxygen wrote:

BTW using `std::Optional` makes more sense since it does distinguish 
between `None` (totally not set) and Boolean `false` (disabled). Your initial 
thought is that `false` stands for 1) MSA flag is not set and 2) MSA is 
disabled, but if we target a non-MIPS machine, then we must know if the 
`-mno-msa` is actually set - that's why using plain `bool` in this context is 
not a good idea, `false` can not mean two states.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99615
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits