Add a CPU constraint for loongarch64.#133
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Ping @gregestren |
gregestren
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2026
Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson, the architecture name seems to be "loongarch", so using "loongarch64" to distinguish the 64-bit variant seems useful. Given that this is new, I do not see a value in adding an alias for `loong64` since that seems likely to confuse users about which name is correct. Fixes bazelbuild#107.
79ca32d to
0d7f599
Compare
|
Nice :) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson, the architecture name seems to be "loongarch", so using "loongarch64" to distinguish the 64-bit variant seems useful. Given that this is new, I do not see a value in adding an alias for
loong64since that seems likely to confuse users about which name is correct.Fixes #107.