[PATCH] Implements -mfpu=softvfp+variants on ARM driver

Bernie Ogden bogden at arm.com
Tue Feb 18 02:53:22 PST 2014

Nitpick: line 724 of Tools.cpp is blank.

You're testing that we're setting the right target features for FP hardware,
but I don't see tests that we're getting the right calling convention. Is
that something that could reasonably be added, or am I just showing my
ignorance here?

More generally, this is another case of having multiple ways of specifying
the same thing, just as with the -mcpu/-march thing - and that is a Bad
Thing, but I think it's necessary for this case. You could consider removing
-mfloat-abi, but that's a breaking change for existing makefiles so I think
living with the duplication is the best way. Is float-abi an exclusively ARM
thing? (And do we care about cross-target CLI consistency?)

Basically LGTM, modulo the nitpick and the tests.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-commits-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Renato Golin
> Sent: 17 February 2014 19:41
> To: Clang Commits
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implements -mfpu=softvfp+variants on ARM driver
> On 17 February 2014 18:22, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>
> wrote:
> > Explicit soft-float makes sense for e.g. kernel use, even if the
> target
> > is *hf.
> That's a good point, but the conflict is that there is already an
> option "-float-abi=hard" and I didn't want to add "+soft-float-abi" to
> avoid conflicting behaviour.
> Should I remove the -floag-abi=hard parameter AND add +soft-float-abi?
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list