[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

zixuan-wu added a comment. Herald added subscribers: sunshaoce, pcwang-thead, eopXD, VincentWu, luke957, StephenFan, vkmr, frasercrmck, evandro, luismarques, MaskRay, arichardson. Herald added a project: All. In D54214#1737255 , @simoncook wrote: > Rebase

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGc00e5cf29d49: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag (authored by simoncook). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54214?vs=228261&id=229784#toc Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CH

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

lenary accepted this revision. lenary added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. In D54214#1737255 , @simoncook wrote: > Rebase. > > @lenary Following the discussion regarding D69383 > , I think it's

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

simoncook updated this revision to Diff 228261. simoncook added a comment. Rebase. @lenary Following the discussion regarding D69383 , I think it's best for now to keep the logic just keeping `-march` directly, rather than using `getRISCVArch`. I think in the c

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

lenary added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: sameer.abuasal. I have no issue with the underlying logic here. Please rebase on top of D69383 and use `riscv::getRISCVArch(...)` defined in that patch rather than querying `Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_march_E

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

jrtc27 added a comment. In D54214#1718043 , @simoncook wrote: > Ping, before I rebased this did anyone have any other thoughts on flag > precedence? The precedence seems sensible; it's what MIPS is doing for -mabi vs -target just above.

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

simoncook added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: pzheng. Ping, before I rebased this did anyone have any other thoughts on flag precedence? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54214/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54214 __

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

simoncook added a comment. In D54214#1609967 , @lenary wrote: > What happens if I pass `clang -march=rv32i -target riscv64-unknown-elf`? > Should we care about the ordering of `-march` vs `-target`? Currently this patch makes the output be generated for

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

lenary added a comment. What happens if I pass `clang -march=rv32i -target riscv64-unknown-elf`? Should we care about the ordering of `-march` vs `-target`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54214/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54214

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

simoncook updated this revision to Diff 212772. simoncook added a comment. Herald added subscribers: s.egerton, lenary, Jim, benna, psnobl. Herald added a project: clang. Rebase on top of tree. I've noticed that without this flag calling riscv32-unknown-elf-clang -march=rv64i will still produce

[PATCH] D54214: [RISCV] Set triple based on -march flag

simoncook created this revision. simoncook added a reviewer: asb. Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, jocewei, PkmX, rkruppe, the_o, brucehoult, MartinMosbeck, rogfer01, mgrang, edward-jones, zzheng, jrtc27, shiva0217, kito-cheng, niosHD, sabuasal, apazos, johnrusso, rbar. For RISC-V the valu