[lanai] Add back the ability to set the memory model with --mcmodel. #150575
Conversation
Sometimes between April 2023 and today the option disappeared. I wasn't able to trace when it went away through the different refactoring.
|
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
llvmbot
added
clang
|
I did not see a way to add a test for this change. Please advice is there is, |
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: None (petergrind3) ChangesSometimes between April 2023 and today the option disappeared. I wasn't able to trace when it went away through the different refactoring. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150575.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.cpp b/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.cpp
index 826e2ea7eb06d..9cac8b1517ea1 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.cpp
@@ -3055,6 +3055,8 @@ void tools::addMCModel(const Driver &D, const llvm::opt::ArgList &Args,
else if (CM == "medany")
CM = "large";
Ok = CM == "small" || CM == "medium" || CM == "large";
+ } else if (Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::lanai) {
+ Ok = llvm::is_contained({"small", "medium", "large"}, CM);
}
if (Ok) {
CmdArgs.push_back(Args.MakeArgString("-mcmodel=" + CM));
|
|
Something like 757d8b3 is probably the simplest way to just check that the flags are accepted. |
Sometimes between April 2023 and today the option disappeared. I wasn't able to trace when it went away through the different refactoring.
Sometimes between April 2023 and today the option disappeared. I wasn't able to trace when it went away through the different refactoring.
|
added some test to check that the mcmodel flag is handled properly. |
| else if (CM == "medany") | ||
| CM = "large"; | ||
| Ok = CM == "small" || CM == "medium" || CM == "large"; | ||
| } else if (Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::lanai) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering if there is an ordering here, but I can't really see one, so at end SG,
|
@petergrind3 Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here. If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! |
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/65/builds/21486 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
4 participants
Sometimes between April 2023 and today the option disappeared. I wasn't able to trace when it went away through the different refactoring.