https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
James Greenhalgh <jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jgreenhalgh at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from James Greenhalgh <jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> > 3) We should think about whether we need to put out these +no extension
> > strings at all. I don't like that for my older systems I'll need to keep
> > updating my binutils to cover any new extension strings (e.g. +nolse) that
> > are added by GCC if I want to use -march=native . We shouldn't force that if
> > we don't have to.
> >
>
> Do you know why these +no where introduced in the first place?
>
> Why would there be a difference between "+nolse" and "" for instance?
We don't keep track (in aarch64-driver.c) of which flags are implicitly
included (e.g. +fp+simd) and would need an explicit +nofp to disable, and which
flags need explicitly enabled (e.g. +crc) and so don't need to be explicitly
disabled.
I'm working on a clean-up.
