[llvm-dev] Diff to add ARMv6L to Target parser

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 5 January 2016 at 12:33, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know they don't make sense in many corner cases, but I think
> discarding logic where it *does* exist is a mistake.

We're not discarding any logic. As I said, the architecture name
cannot be ARMv7L for any reason. It's that simple.

The logic, if it exists, need to be encoded somewhere else.


> I do know this, Renato.

I only meant as an opener, not as education. I know you know this...


> I have no idea what you're objecting to here. I wasn't saying anything
> about how GNU interprets the armv7l that would be produced, just that
> I would expect running "uname" on an R-class Linux to produce armv7l.

I cannot separate between A and R if both use the same arch name.
Knowing the sub-arch is as important than knowing its byte-sex, and I
can't trade one for the other.

If the Driver/Triple/Tuple knows which, depending on other
information, then they should be the ones encoding this.

Adding an *Arch Name* ARMv7L will make no progress in understanding
what it is. Encoding the correct fields in the Triple/Tuple will, and
for that, ARMv7A or ARMv7R are the *correct* "arch names".

cheers,
--renato