On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2011, Michael Eager wrote: > >> David Edelsohn wrote: >> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Two options, -mcmodel= and -mfpu=, had cases that fell through to the >> > > next case without comments to indicate if this was intended. I added >> > > comments to make the semantics explicit. Given the documentation, it >> > > may well be intentional for -mcmodel= but is more doubtful for -mfpu=. >> > >> > I doubt that either of the fall through cases was intended. >> > >> > Alan, is mcmodel suppose to set m64? >> > >> > Michael, is mfpu suppose to set mrecip? >> >> No. There was a break statement at the end of case OPT_mfpu which >> disappeared when OPT_mrecip was added. > > Thanks. I'll apply this patch which removes the fall through, and adds > explicit Var and Init to the mfpu= entry in rs6000.opt to avoid problems > (when building as C++, as shown by a regression tester) with > 0-initialization of the field that gets automatically generated by the > .opt machinery for any Target option not using Var. > > 2011-05-05 Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_handle_option): Don't fall > through from -mfpu= handling. > * config/rs6000/rs6000.opt (mfpu=): Use Var and Init.
Okay. The entire patch looks good with the two fall through cases corrected. Thanks, David
