https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115713
Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> index 76bbb3a28ea..4638c34cc24 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc
> @@ -24638,8 +24638,11 @@ rs6000_inner_target_options (tree args, bool attr_p)
> {
> if (mask == OPTION_MASK_VSX)
> {
> - mask |= OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC;
> - TARGET_AVOID_XFORM = 0;
> + if (!(rs6000_isa_flags_explicit
> + & OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC))
> + mask |= OPTION_MASK_ALTIVEC;
> + if (!OPTION_SET_P (TARGET_AVOID_XFORM))
> + TARGET_AVOID_XFORM = 0;
> }
> }
Testing this patch and found one regression failure:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-target-4.c
It fails due to that the command line (dg-options) specifies -mno-altivec
/* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -mdejagnu-cpu=power5 -mno-altivec
-mabi=altivec -fno-unroll-loops" } */
meanwhile #pragma target just specifies "vsx"
#pragma GCC target("vsx")
#include <altivec.h>
----
w/o this patch, "vsx" would enable altivec implicitly no matter that command
line option specifying -mno-altivec, while w/ this patch "vsx" won't enable
altivec any more. It's like the case in #c0, the difference is -mno-altivec is
from command line or target attribute itself. It can be fixed by explicitly
specifying "-maltivec" in target attribute.
But by checking the manual, I noticed the documentation on target attribute
says "The original target command-line options are ignored.", I think it
contradicts with what we implemented for target attribute parsing now? It seems
the other targets don't conform with this very well, target_option_default_node
has considered all command line options? I wonder if the documentation is
intentional to define like this.
