IMHO it is an antipattern to have a enum value that is Default.
At any given piece of code it is not clear if we have to handle
Default or if has already been mapped to a concrete value. In this
case in particular, only the target can do the mapping and it is nice
to make sure it is always done.
This deletes the two default enum values of CodeModel and uses an
explicit Optional<CodeModel> when it is possible that it is
unspecified.
llvm-svn: 309911
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
TargetPassConfig is not useful for targets that do not use the CodeGen
library, so we may just as well store a pointer to an
LLVMTargetMachine instead of just to a TargetMachine.
While at it, also change the constructor to take a reference instead of a
pointer as the TM must not be nullptr.
llvm-svn: 304247
This contains just enough for lib/Target/RISCV to compile. Notably a basic
RISCVTargetMachine and RISCVTargetInfo. At this point you can attempt llc
-march=riscv32 myinput.ll and will find it fails due to the lack of
MCAsmInfo.
See http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-August/103748.html for
further discussion
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23560
llvm-svn: 285712
Rafael Espindola