RKSimon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:3189
break;
+ case CK_ZNVER1:
+ setFeatureEnabledImpl(Features, "adx", true);
----------------
GGanesh wrote:
> RKSimon wrote:
> > Same as what I asked on D28017 - is there an accepted order that we should
> > be using here?
> Some of them seems to be chronological.
> Some of them are alphabetical.
>
> I personally don't have any preference as such.
> Alphabetical order suits a long list.
> I would like to know your suggestion.
@craig.topper Any preferences?
No strong preference and nothing that should slow the acceptance of this patch
- alphabetical can be easier to maintain but it's unlikely this code changes
often.
Sorting by feature groups/age can be more understandable, and can help account
for the fall-through behaviour used in many of the cases here - speaking of
which would it be useful to fall-through from CK_ZNVER1 to CK_BTVER2 to
CK_BTVER1 since they seem to have a common set of features?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28018
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
