| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We've already paid the price for separate "armv7m" and "armv7em" slices
(support in other tools), it's silly to make them identical other than the
default CPU.
rdar://23055688
llvm-svn: 266211
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a simpler rule, broadly in line with previous Darwin (which chose
between "soft" and "softfp") but probably safer. In practice the only real
reason for "softfp" is ABI compatibility, not usually an issue on limited chips
like these, so anyone who wanted hard-float should already be saying so.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
rdar://problem/15887493
llvm-svn: 199896
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously we had bodged together some hacks mapping MachO embedded
targets (i.e. mainly ARM v6M and v7M) to the "*-*-darwin-eabi" triple.
This is incorrect in both details (they don't run Darwin and they're
not EABI in any real sense).
This commit appropriates the existing "MachO" environment for the
purpose instead.
llvm-svn: 199367
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Well, that's one way to pass a test, I suppose. Unfortunately actually doing
the testing means I didn't pass all I thought (embedded v7a is not supported,
apparently). I'll deal with that with the move to -none-macho rather than
putting heinous hacks in right now.
llvm-svn: 197240
|
|
|
This refactors some of the Darwin toolchain classification to give a more solid
distinction between the three primary Darwin platforms (OS X, IOS and IOS
simulator) so that a 4th choice can be added temporarily: embedded MachO
targets.
Longer term, this support will be factored out into a separate class and no
longer classified as "darwin-eabi", but the refactoring should still be useful.
llvm-svn: 197148
|
