[PATCH] D11319: Pass subtarget feature "+reserve-r9" instead of passing backend option "-arm-reserve-r9"

[Matthias Braun]

MatzeB added a subscriber: MatzeB.
MatzeB added a comment.

This case sounds like r9 is a typical ABI difference on the ARM target. Unless there is an example of a real-world ARM ABI case that would benefit from reserving another register I'd not introduce a general reservation mechanism.

In any case this should be independent of switches to the test the register allocator. Testing switches should use cl::opts while proper ABI stuff should indeed use subtarget features.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D11319