[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

fpetrogalli abandoned this revision. fpetrogalli added a comment. Replaced by D137838 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137516/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137516 ___

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

lenary added a comment. In D137516#3912900 , @fpetrogalli wrote: > In D137516#3912842 , @lenary wrote: > >> In D137516#3912751 , @fpetrogalli >> wrote: >> >>> @arsenm @f

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

fpetrogalli added a comment. In D137516#3912842 , @lenary wrote: > In D137516#3912751 , @fpetrogalli > wrote: > >> @arsenm @frasercrmck @lenary - thank you for the feedback >> >> 1. The library could host anythin

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

lenary added a comment. In D137516#3912751 , @fpetrogalli wrote: > @arsenm @frasercrmck @lenary - thank you for the feedback > > 1. The library could host anything that needs to be auto-generated with > tablegen. If we add `MVT`s, the name `TargetSuppor

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

fpetrogalli added a comment. @arsenm @frasercrmck @lenary - thank you for the feedback 1. The library could host anything that needs to be auto-generated with tablegen. If we add `MVT`s, the name `TargetSupport` becomes obsolete. 2. Therefore we could use a name like `AutoGenSupport` (or similar

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

lenary added a comment. I'm not convinced we should be leaving any of the other Target Parser information in Support, if we are doing this, though this creates layering issues which I've been trying to unpick. If you try to take `llvm/Support/*TargetParser*`, you find a few places where there

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

frasercrmck added a comment. In D137516#3911245 , @arsenm wrote: > I think this is fine, but think the name needs to be bikeshedded. "Target" > and "Support" are already overloaded enough as it is. Is there anything else > that would really ever go into

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

arsenm added a comment. I think this is fine, but think the name needs to be bikeshedded. "Target" and "Support" are already overloaded enough as it is. Is there anything else that would really ever go into this library? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https:

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

fpetrogalli added a comment. RFC at https://discourse.llvm.org/t/targetparser-auto-generation-of-riscv-cpu-definitions/66419 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137516/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137516 __

[PATCH] D137516: [TargetSupport] Move TargetParser API in a separate LLVM component.

fpetrogalli created this revision. Herald added subscribers: kosarev, foad, frasercrmck, kerbowa, luismarques, apazos, sameer.abuasal, pengfei, s.egerton, Jim, jocewei, PkmX, the_o, brucehoult, MartinMosbeck, rogfer01, edward-jones, zzheng, jrtc27, niosHD, sabuasal, simoncook, johnrusso, rbar, a