Hi Folks, > On 13 Nov 2018, at 17:48, Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > On 11/13/18 5:17 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:02:55PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 04:34:34PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >>>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On darwin, we (darwin, as a platform decision) like all instructions >>>> available from the assembler. >>> >>> OK, fair enough. Another option is to just disable -many when gcc is >>> in development, like we enable checking. >> >> That is a good plan for GCC 9 at least. > > I like the plan too. We can also continue to pass -many just for darwin > if they really really think they need it.
As far as I expect, Darwin should be untouched by this - we have a separate assembler (which doesn’t even respond to -many), so unless there’s some higher level translation done (it’s not mentioned in any Darwin specs), we should just carry on as before. When I do expect things to change is when multiple .machine directives are included in asm sources. (probably) the old cctools assembler won’t deal with them properly (the 4.0.1 era) LLVM-backend based version I have doesn’t deal with them either (this could be a general consideration for the other parts of the PPC toolchain). Having said that, I didn’t experiment with .machine on later LLVM backend versions yet. Thus, my current expectation is that this will be a NOP unless/until incompatible asm source changes are made. Iain
