>>! In D5988#9, @clayborg wrote: > Everything looks good except there is no need to add "eCore_ppc_powerpc" as > we already have "eCore_ppc_generic", and no need to add > "eCore_ppc64_powerpc64" as we already have "eCore_ppc64_generic". Feel free > to keep the new "powerpc" and "powerpc64" string entries in the ArchSpec > table, but I still use the eCore_ppc_generic and eCore_ppc64_generic core > definitions.
Thanks, Greg. I was also hesitant about the ArchSpec table, because of this duplication. The only reason I added these was to appease the static_assert that follows the table. Adding two new entries required adding two new enum items as well. If changing the assert to '>=' from '==' is sufficient, I'll go ahead with that and remove the new definitions. Otherwise, do you have any suggestion on how best to handle this? http://reviews.llvm.org/D5988 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
