mkuper added a comment.
If there are real-life usecases, then GCC-compatible behavior is probably
better than just rejecting it outright, so I'm retracting my comment from
PR30426.
(I would probably have liked x86_64 with -mno-sse2 and no -msoft-float to be an
error, but I would also like a
joerg added a comment.
Rejecting -mno-sse2 for x86_64 is even worse. Dynamic linkers e.g. in FreeBSD
and NetBSD depend on that. They also don't contain floating point code, but
that's a separate question. Similar constraints exist for the kernels.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304
RKSimon added reviewers: mkuper, dim, RKSimon.
RKSimon added a comment.
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30426#c3
On PR30426 the proposal was that we should just not accept x86_64 triples with
no-sse/no-sse2 at the command line parsing level - we just have no way to guess
what the coder
joerg added a comment.
The frontend is the wrong place as it doesn't even know if the register is ever
going to be used. E.g. if it is a static function, all instances could be
inlined away.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304
___
cfe-commits mailing
efriedma added a comment.
The logic to compute whether a calling convention uses SSE registers does exist
in clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp, so it might be possible to reuse that...
but I'm not sure that's better than just detecting it in the backend.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304
ahatanak added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304#610944, @thegameg wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304#610697, @joerg wrote:
>
> > I think this is the absolutely wrong place to put such logic. It really can
> > not be anywhere but the backend.
>
>
> I am aware of this. But
hfinkel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304#610944, @thegameg wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304#610697, @joerg wrote:
>
> > I think this is the absolutely wrong place to put such logic. It really can
> > not be anywhere but the backend.
>
>
> I am aware of this. But
thegameg added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304#610697, @joerg wrote:
> I think this is the absolutely wrong place to put such logic. It really can
> not be anywhere but the backend.
I am aware of this. But the way the backend informs the Diagnostics looks like
a crash, and asks
joerg added a comment.
I think this is the absolutely wrong place to put such logic. It really can not
be anywhere but the backend.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27304
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
thegameg created this revision.
thegameg added reviewers: craig.topper, majnemer.
thegameg added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
The following program hits a fatal_error in the X86 backend, when the
program is compiled with -mno-sse or -mno-sse2, which is understandable
due to the calling convention:
10 matches
Mail list logo