echristo added a comment.
No strong opinion. I think I like that one more though.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40228
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
craig.topper added a comment.
Yeah don't like it either, but was surprised to find that CodeGen even had a
non-const reference to TargetOptions. Would it be better to make a copy and
sort the copy during CodeGen?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40228
echristo accepted this revision.
echristo added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This seems strictly more difficult to keep under control? Though I guess the
assert helps.
Feel free to go ahead, but...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40228
craig.topper created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: nhaehnle.
Currently CodeGen is calling std::sort on the features vector in TargetOptions
for every function, but I don't think CodeGen should be modifying TargetOptions.
This moves the sorting up to the creation/modification of
