Hi Renato and Saleem,
Thanks for letting me know about this. Sounds good to me.
For the llvmdev mailing list reader's reference, here's the ARM
specification on the Tag_CPU_arch:
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ihi0045d/index.html
Logan
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> Hi Logan,
>
> FYI, I spoke with Saleem on IRC, and we agree that this should be
> pre-v4. We don't expect any issues to come, so we should worry about
> them if there are any.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> On 27 May 2015 at 17:26, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> > Hi Logan,
> >
> > There are some tests in the MC/ARM directory that seem suspicious:
> > directive-arch-armv{2,3}.s
> >
> > They expect "armv2" and "armv3" to have an
"ARM v4" tag, which is wrong.
> >
> > I know GCC does that, but I don't think we should. Given that this
> > will probably never happen in LLVM, I think we can safely take the
> > correct approach and ignore GCC.
> >
> > Any other reason why you added those tests?
> >
> > cheers,
> > --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150530/f1c9f589/attachment.html>