guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#69581] [PATCH 10/11] gnu: clang-properties: Update x86_64 micro-arc


From: Efraim Flashner
Subject: [bug#69581] [PATCH 10/11] gnu: clang-properties: Update x86_64 micro-architectures.
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:07:12 +0200

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 07:12:25PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> >> 
> >> > * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-properties): Add entries on x86_64 for
> >> > versions 17, 16, 15, 13, 9 and remove entry for version 10.
> >> >
> >> > Change-Id: I93149c30f011c6de8ff0cc2c2b6f0186540359cd
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > -      ;; This list was obtained by running:
> >> > -      ;;
> >> > -      ;;   guix shell clang -- llc -march=x86-64 -mattr=help
> >> > -      ;;
> >> > -      ;; filtered from uninteresting entries such as "i686" and 
> >> > "pentium".
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > +      ("x86_64"
> >> > +       ;; This list was obtained from 
> >> > clang/test/Misc/target-invalid-cpu-note.c
> >> 
> >> Does the ‘llc’ method no longer work?  It looked easier.
> >> 
> >> Apart from that, LGTM.
> >
> > I've attached the file from llvmorg-15.0.7.  I found the file easier
> > since I didn't have to run the command from the shell and it listed all
> > the architectures I wouldn't have even thought of looking at.  And I
> > didn't have to do any filtering myself. And it's sorted by "power" and
> > by vendor, not alphabetically.
> 
> I see.  It looks convenient but that’s a unit test: it’s not the “ground
> truth” and it doesn’t have to match exactly what’s supported.  The ‘llc’
> command is likely more faithful so I would keep it at least in the
> comment.

I'll keep the original comment and compare what I've added to what's
returned from the command. Then we also have an easy list to compare
against when removing uninteresting options from the output.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]