ian-twilightcoder wrote: > > > > It is a little unusual in that it's not a specific os and kind of needs > > > > a specific vendor for it to have any meaning. Even apple-firmware isn't > > > > a specific os, It's more of a collection of os-like related platforms > > > > that we need some kind of common way to refer to in the compiler. > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think that this should be codified into the triple parsing > > > and we should have tests to reject the invalid triples. Basically, it > > > sounds like: `aarch64-unknown-none-firmware-coff` would not be a valid > > > triple? (ARM64, no vendor extensions, no OS, PE/COFF object file for a > > > firmware environment. > > > > > > We wanted to use `firmware` as OS to represent the overall platform, and > > then use the environment to codify specific flavors. I think it should be > > easy enough to make the triple parser ignore a "firmware" os if the vendor > > isn't "apple" (or isn't "unknown"?). > > I think that it will need to be limited to the `apple` vendor. The `unknown` > vendor is the generic vendor that is for everyone, so you will have to pass > that through the GNU folks.
Alright, it's now limited to the `apple` vendor. > Oh wait, this is limited to the Darwin platform? In that case, can we have > some negative tests to ensure that something like > aarch64-unknown-linux-firmware or aarch64-unknown-firmware is not processed > as a valid triple? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/176272/files#diff-cfce857ccab5e6525bb5686e630631dc779f34257813e0efd03d3bd95b8aee96 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/176272 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
