Thanks for the feedback, Eric. I've thought further about the potential deprecation of -mcpu. TBH, I haven't seen any good reason for deprecating -mcpu. I've looked through the discussion threads on this topic on the LLVM mailing lists and tried to find discussions on the gcc side about deprecating -mcpu. I haven't found any strong arguments to deprecate -mcpu for the AArch64 architecture.
Therefore, I don't see a good reason for implementing -march/-mcpu/-mtune option behaviour for AArch64 any other way than gcc does it. Thanks, Kristof > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Christopher [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 09 July 2014 19:49 > To: Kristof Beyls > Cc: Kevin Qin; Clang Commits; [email protected]; LLVM Commits; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [AArch64] Implement Clang CLI interface proposal > about "-march". > > > * On deprecating -mcpu: I think that should be left to a follow-on > > patch and probably needs some further discussing, as I'm not > > fully convinced it's the right thing to do. If we did deprecate > > -mcpu, I do think that we would have to start accepting cpu > > names to the -march flag, as a shorthand for "the architecture > > variant as implemented by that CPU". For example, -march cortex-a57 > > would be equivalent to specifying -march armv8-a+fp+simd+crypto+crc. > > We would also lose command line compatibility with gcc, which > > would make it harder for people using gcc to start trying out clang. > > Let's just have -march=cyclone/cortex-a57 work right from the start and > we won't have to worry about it. > > Thanks. > > -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
