[LLVMdev] Target-specific defaults for LLVM tools?

[Eric Christopher]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
wrote:

> > However, issues start to pop up when we consider all the other tools
> (opt,
> > llc,
> > and so on) and the complications of having for example a "cross-llc".
> Usage
> > of
> > such tools is becoming increasingly likely thanks to the existence of
> other
> > tools and frontends which can generate LLVM IR. Some crazy people might
> even
> > try
> > to write IR instead of C++! :-)
> llc / opt and similar tools are intended for LLVM developer use and
> should never be exposed to end-user. Therefore, things like
> "cross-llc" and similar do not make any sense.
>
> If, for some particular weird reason, there is need for e.g. 'opt'
> functionality to be provided to users, then a new tool with clear
> command line should be developed implementing the necessary
> functionality.
>
> > Currently, there is a non-trivial number of LLVM tests that do not set
> the full
> > triple, but only parts of it, and then rely on specific default code
> generation
> > options.
> In most cases this should be considered as a bug - the test should be
> precise and therefore ought to be fixed.
>
>
To elaborate more here:

a) It's probably a bug in the test, however,
b) It may be that the test is considered generic enough to be for all x86
and there's something else going a little weird.

There's enough b that it's still probably a case by case basis.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150317/11d4fddb/attachment.html>