erichkeane added a comment.
I think this is OK, I have a slight fear we're losing a bit of the 'tune'
functionality, but it is not impossible that we've never really cared about
that. One concern I have is that the list was used for the resolver function,
but I don't see any test changes for that? Are we properly filtering out the
features list somehow?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:2272
// favor this processor.
- TuneCPU = getTarget().getCPUSpecificTuneName(
- SD->getCPUName(GD.getMultiVersionIndex())->getName());
+ TuneCPU = SD->getCPUName(GD.getMultiVersionIndex())->getName();
}
----------------
So my understanding here is that our intent was that the 'tune' cpu and the
'selected' cpu were not necessarily the same (either not the same name, OR not
the same CPU!), right? Is that being lost here?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151696/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D151696
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
