[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] AArch64 Clang CLI interface proposal
bogden at arm.com
Thu Jan 9 01:29:56 PST 2014
Thanks, that's a helpful explanation of the position. I sympathise with your
'co-operation over following' view, though I'm also not sure how.
I'm not convinced that having both -mcpu and -march makes the driver any
more mind boggling - I'm sure we could implement something tidier than what
happened for the ARM32 side. But I think Amara's superset proposal would
have a simpler implementation, so let's move on with that for now.
From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
Sent: 08 January 2014 12:58
To: Bernard Ogden
Cc: Eric Christopher; LLVM Developers Mailing List; Clang Dev; Amara Emerson
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] AArch64 Clang CLI interface proposal
On 8 January 2014 12:32, Bernard Ogden <Bernard.Ogden at arm.com> wrote:
I don't think there's software that *needs* the compatibility, but it is
easier for GCC projects to switch to clang if that compatibility is there -
which I think is why we go for GCC compatibility in the first place?
GCC compatibility is always considered to be an important feature of LLVM,
not the *most* important one. We'll never go beyond reason to add GCC
compatibility just because, especially one that is poorly or not at all
The general rule of thumb is to ask the questions:
* Do we really need it?
* Isn't there any other way?
* Is this sane? Or should the original authors re-write their programs?
There has been some progress on both GCC and LLVM to co-operate, rather than
follow each other blindly, and I can see this as the only future for both
In this specific case, I'd strongly oppose to follow whatever GCC does,
since the Clang driver is already mind bogging. The only reasonable course
of action from here is to open the discussion in the GCC and LLVM community
together (not sure how, but we'll *have* to figure it out), and follow from
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev