brad added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/Sparc.cpp:246-256
+  if (getTriple().getOS() == llvm::Triple::Linux) {
     Builder.defineMacro("__sparc_v9__");
-    Builder.defineMacro("__sparcv9__");
+  } else {
+    Builder.defineMacro("__sparcv9");
+    // Solaris doesn't need these variants, but the BSDs do.
+    if (getTriple().getOS() != llvm::Triple::Solaris) {
+      Builder.defineMacro("__sparc64__");
----------------
glaubitz wrote:
> glaubitz wrote:
> > ro wrote:
> > > glaubitz wrote:
> > > > jrtc27 wrote:
> > > > > This doesn't need changing, we can define more things than GCC to 
> > > > > keep it simple.
> > > > Well, my original intent was to match GCC to make sure we're 100% 
> > > > compatible and I would like to keep it that way.
> > > I agree with Jessica here: you're creating a complicated maze for no real 
> > > gain.  Besides, have you checked what `gcc` on the BSDs really does?  
> > > They often neglect to get their changes upstream and what's in the gcc 
> > > repo doesn't necessarily represent what they actually use.
> > Yes, I have verified that GCC behaves the exact same way as this change and 
> > I don't see any reason not to mimic the exact same behavior in clang for 
> > maximum compatibility.
> FWIW, I meant GCC on the various BSDs. I do not think it's a wise idea to 
> have clang deviate from what GCC does as only this way we can guarantee that 
> everything that compiles with GCC will compile with clang.
> Besides, have you checked what `gcc` on the BSDs really does?  They often 
> neglect to get their changes upstream and what's in the gcc repo doesn't 
> necessarily represent what they actually use.

What is upstream is what we do. There are no local patches that change behavior 
in this particular area.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D98574/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D98574

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to