pcc added a comment.
> It appears that Clang already supports an -mthread_model=single option, so do
> you recommend that I remove the -mllvm -safe-stack-usp-storage=single-thread
> option and rely on -mthread_model instead?
Makes sense to me. We're free to break `-mllvm` flags, they are for
mlemay-intel added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19483#417865, @pcc wrote:
> > This makes sense for the example I gave. However, there are also more
> > complicated situations. Sometimes it is necessary to specify different
> > options for different files that are compiled for the
pcc added a comment.
> This makes sense for the example I gave. However, there are also more
> complicated situations. Sometimes it is necessary to specify different
> options for different files that are compiled for the same OS. For example,
> early during the initialization of a dynamic
mlemay-intel added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19483#417857, @pcc wrote:
> You should be using `-target x86-unknown-contiki` or similar. That should
> tune the behaviour to what is required for that OS. See what we have in
> `TargetLoweringBase::getSafeStackPointerLocation` to
pcc added a comment.
You should be using `-target x86-unknown-contiki` or similar. That should tune
the behaviour to what is required for that OS. See what we have in
`TargetLoweringBase::getSafeStackPointerLocation` to provide Android-specific
behaviour for example.
The existence of flags is
mlemay-intel added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19483#417844, @pcc wrote:
> We shouldn't be adding (much less documenting) `-mllvm` flags. Is there any
> reason why this behavior can't be gated on the OS?
We actually already have added at least one `-mllvm` flag: `-mllvm
pcc added a comment.
We shouldn't be adding (much less documenting) `-mllvm` flags. Is there any
reason why this behavior can't be gated on the OS?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19483
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
