Xiangling_L added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:1443
+ if (Arg *A =
+ Args.getLastArg(OPT_mabi_EQ_vec_default, OPT_mabi_EQ_vec_extabi)) {
----------------
ZarkoCA wrote:
> Xiangling_L wrote:
> > Should we also check if target feature altivec[`-target-feature +altivec`]
> > is enabled when using these two options? If so, we should also add related
> > testcases.
> Both of these options require that -maltivec is also selected which sets
> `-target-feature +altivec`.
> Both of these options require that -maltivec is also selected which sets
> `-target-feature +altivec`.
It seems the scenario you pointed out are driver invocation use case. But when
users invoke clang -cc1 not driver with -mabi=ext-abi/default, should we also
check if the user specify `-target-feature +altivec` as well? For now, based on
my observation, if invoking cc1 without `-target-feature +altivec` but with
`-mabi=ext-abi` only like `// RUN: %clang_cc1 -mabi=vec-extabi -triple
powerpc64-unknown-aix -emit-llvm %s -o - | FileCheck %s`, the error is `error:
unknown type name 'vector'`. Should we explicitly say `-target-feature
+altivec` is required as what we do for driver?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/aix-vec-extabi.c:2
+// RUN: %clang -### -target powerpc-unknown-aix -S -maltivec -mabi=vec-extabi
%s 2>&1 | \
+// RUN: FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK
+
----------------
minor: We can omit `--check-prefix=CHECK`
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Target/TargetOptions.h:179
+ /// AIXExtendedAltivecABI - This flag returns true when -vec-extabi is
+ /// specified. The code generator is then able to use both volatile and
----------------
minor:
s/AIXExtendedAltivecABI/EnableAIXExtendedAltivecABI
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89684/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89684
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
