Nitpick: line 724 of Tools.cpp is blank. You're testing that we're setting the right target features for FP hardware, but I don't see tests that we're getting the right calling convention. Is that something that could reasonably be added, or am I just showing my ignorance here?
More generally, this is another case of having multiple ways of specifying the same thing, just as with the -mcpu/-march thing - and that is a Bad Thing, but I think it's necessary for this case. You could consider removing -mfloat-abi, but that's a breaking change for existing makefiles so I think living with the duplication is the best way. Is float-abi an exclusively ARM thing? (And do we care about cross-target CLI consistency?) Basically LGTM, modulo the nitpick and the tests. Regards, Bernie > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:cfe-commits- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Renato Golin > Sent: 17 February 2014 19:41 > To: Clang Commits > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implements -mfpu=softvfp+variants on ARM driver > > On 17 February 2014 18:22, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Explicit soft-float makes sense for e.g. kernel use, even if the > target > > is *hf. > > That's a good point, but the conflict is that there is already an > option "-float-abi=hard" and I didn't want to add "+soft-float-abi" to > avoid conflicting behaviour. > > Should I remove the -floag-abi=hard parameter AND add +soft-float-abi? > > --renato > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
