HemangGadhavi wrote:
> So I think it comes down to what benefits you get from having separate code.
> Do you have a branch I could look at and see the subsequent changes so I can
> get an idea of where you need to diverge? It does not have to be review
> quality, I just need a rough idea of where you're going with this.
The changes are still under active development, and we haven’t created a
dedicated branch for this work yet. The major benefits is to accommodate the
architectural differences without modifying existing code path.
> Also if we're going down the duplication path, I think I'd want to see
> `ppc64le` and `ppc64be` naming, instead of just `ppc`. I know `ppc` implies
> `be` but not to anyone who hasn't worked with it before. Then again maybe
> seeing your changes will change my mind on that.
That makes sense and can be done if needed. However, we’ve been following the
LLVM naming convention,(where `ppc64le` is used for Little Endian and `ppc64`
implicitly refers to Big Endian).
```
/// Tests whether the target is 64-bit PowerPC (little and big endian).
bool isPPC64() const {
return getArch() == Triple::ppc64 || getArch() == Triple::ppc64le;
}
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165367
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
