<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Allowing -march=aarch64/arm64 is somewhat misleading I think, -march is used for specifying an architecture version to target whereas aarch64/arm64 don’t convey
any information to that effect, does it mean armv8a, armv8.1-a, etc? Personally I’m in favor of having that be rejected, it would be good to have TargetParser/Clang generally reject CPUs/architectures that are not valid or don’t add information as opposed
to converting them to a fairly arbitrary choice (that will and does only cause confusion).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Bradley Smith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Jojo Ma [mailto:jojo.ma@linaro.org]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 05 May 2016 11:12<br>
<b>To:</b> Bradley Smith; James Molloy; Kevin Qin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Renato Golin; llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> LLVM issuse:AArch64 TargetParser<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Hi everyone,<br>
<br>
I'm a member engineer of linaro's llvm team,coming from Spreadtrum.I am a new person on LLVM.Now I'm writing a Target Parser for AArch64,so options parsing of AArch64 about cpu & arch & fpu can be summary to one place.<br>
<br>
In the TargetParser,we assume "aarch64" and "arm64" are synonyms of armv8a(as they are only for armv8a,people usually do this). So after using AArch64TargetParser in options parsing in Clang,using "-march=aarch64" and "-march=arm64" are both valid.<br>
<br>
I saw Kevin has a different view on this in his submission:r213353.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:#38761D">+// RUN: %clang -target aarch64 -march=arm64 -### -c %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-ARCH-NOT-ACCEPT %s<br>
+// RUN: %clang -target aarch64 -march=aarch64 -### -c %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-ARCH-NOT-ACCEPT %s<br>
+// CHECK-ARCH-NOT-ACCEPT: error: the clang compiler does not support</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
So I failed on the regression testing.So I think we should reach a consensus on this issue.<br>
Would you mind letting me know what you think of this issuse?<br>
<br>
Thank you very much!Looking forward to your reply!<br>
I enclose the attachments for your reference.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Jojo.ma<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>