Found via codespell -q 3 -I ../clang-whitelist.txt
Where whitelist consists of:
archtype
cas
classs
checkk
compres
definit
frome
iff
inteval
ith
lod
methode
nd
optin
ot
pres
statics
te
thru
Patch by luzpaz! (This is a subset of D44188 that applies cleanly with a few
files that have dubious fixes reverted.)
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44188
llvm-svn: 329399
To be compatible with GCC if soft floating point is in effect any FPU
specified is effectively ignored, eg,
-mfloat-abi=soft -fpu=neon
If any floating point features which require FPU hardware are enabled
they must be disable.
There was some support for doing this for NEON, but it did not handle
VFP, nor did it prevent the backend from emitting the build attribute
Tag_FP_arch describing the generated code as using the floating point
hardware if a FPU was specified (even though soft float does not use
the FPU).
Disabling the hardware floating point features for targets which are
compiling for soft float has meant that some tests which were incorrectly
checking for hardware support also needed to be updated. In such cases,
where appropriate the tests have been updated to check compiling for
soft float and a non-soft float variant (usually softfp). This was
usually because the target specified in the test defaulted to soft float.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42569
llvm-svn: 325492
To be compatible with GCC if soft floating point is in effect any FPU
specified is effectively ignored, eg,
-mfloat-abi=soft -fpu=neon
If any floating point features which require FPU hardware are enabled
they must be disable.
There was some support for doing this for NEON, but it did not handle
VFP, nor did it prevent the backend from emitting the build attribute
Tag_FP_arch describing the generated code as using the floating point
hardware if a FPU was specified (even though soft float does not use
the FPU).
Disabling the hardware floating point features for targets which are
compiling for soft float has meant that some tests which were incorrectly
checking for hardware support also needed to be updated. In such cases,
where appropriate the tests have been updated to check compiling for
soft float and a non-soft float variant (usually softfp). This was
usually because the target specified in the test defaulted to soft float.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40256
llvm-svn: 319420
If a struct would end up half in GPRs and half on SP the ABI says it should
actually go entirely on the stack. We were getting this wrong in GlobalISel
before, causing compatibility issues.
llvm-svn: 311137
Summary:
(This is a move-only refactoring patch. There are no functionality changes.)
This patch splits apart the Clang driver's tool and toolchain implementation
files. Each target platform toolchain is moved to its own file, along with the
closest-related tools. Each target platform toolchain has separate headers and
implementation files, so the hierarchy of classes is unchanged.
There are some remaining shared free functions, mostly from Tools.cpp. Several
of these move to their own architecture-specific files, similar to r296056. Some
of them are only used by a single target platform; since the tools and
toolchains are now together, some helpers now live in a platform-specific file.
The balance are helpers related to manipulating argument lists, so they are now
in a new file pair, CommonArgs.h and .cpp.
I've tried to cluster the code logically, which is fairly straightforward for
most of the target platforms and shared architectures. I think I've made
reasonable choices for these, as well as the various shared helpers; but of
course, I'm happy to hear feedback in the review.
There are some particular things I don't like about this patch, but haven't been
able to find a better overall solution. The first is the proliferation of files:
there are several files that are tiny because the toolchain is not very
different from its base (usually the Gnu tools/toolchain). I think this is
mostly a reflection of the true complexity, though, so it may not be "fixable"
in any reasonable sense. The second thing I don't like are the includes like
"../Something.h". I've avoided this largely by clustering into the current file
structure. However, a few of these includes remain, and in those cases it
doesn't make sense to me to sink an existing file any deeper.
Reviewers: rsmith, mehdi_amini, compnerd, rnk, javed.absar
Subscribers: emaste, jfb, danalbert, srhines, dschuff, jyknight, nemanjai, nhaehnle, mgorny, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30372
llvm-svn: 297250
