2016-06-21 23:07 GMT+08:00 Peter Smith <peter.smith-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>:
> Hello Lei,
>
> The changes to llvm and clang look ok to me. I've got some suggestions
> for testing.
>
> For the clang patch, it looks like there isn't a test to check that
> musleabihf implies hard floating point. It looks like
> Driver/arm-mfpu.c CHECK-HF might be a good candidate to add a test.
>
> For the llvm patch
>
> I think you should be able to find a test that checks the behaviour of
> GNUEABI and GNUEABIHF for each of the properties that you've added
> Subtarget->isTargetMuslAEABI() to or equivalent. It would be useful to
> add a test case for MUSLEABI and/or MUSLEABIHF. For example in the
> RTLIB case there are a large number of tests that check whether the
> correct __aeabi_ function is called.
>
> Some files I came across (there are many more) that might be a good
> place to check that musleabi and musleabihf behaves like gnueabi and
> gnueabihf:
> CodeGen/ARM/memfunc.ll
> CodeGen/Thumb2/float-ops.ll
> CodeGen/ARM/divmod-eabi.ll
> CodeGen/ARM/fp16.ll (hard-float for HF)
> MC/ARM/eh-directives-personalityindex.s

Thanks for the pointers! Please see the refined (again) patches.

As a side note, there's no "gnueabi" in float-ops.ll or
eh-directive-personalityindex.s, so I skipped them. In addition, I
found a few other relevant test files to patch thanks to your advice.


Lei