> On 12 Oct 2022, at 09:57, Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12 Oct 2022, at 09:12, Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> PR106680 shows that -m32 -mpowerpc64 is different from
>> -mpowerpc64 -m32, this is determined by the way how we
>> handle option powerpc64 in rs6000_handle_option.
>>
>> Segher pointed out this difference should be taken as
>> a bug and we should ensure that option powerpc64 is
>> independent of -m32/-m64. So this patch removes the
>> handlings in rs6000_handle_option and add some necessary
>> supports in rs6000_option_override_internal instead.
>>
>> With this patch, if users specify -m{no-,}powerpc64, the
>> specified value is honoured, otherwise, for 64bit it
>> always enables OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64; while for 32bit
>> and TARGET_POWERPC64 and OS_MISSING_POWERPC64, it disables
>> OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64.
>>
>> btw, following Segher's suggestion, I did some tries to warn
>> when OPTION_MASK_POWERPC64 is set for OS_MISSING_POWERPC64.
>> If warn for the case that powerpc64 is specified explicitly,
>> there are some TCs using -m32 -mpowerpc64 on ppc64-linux,
>> they need some updates, meanwhile the artificial run
>> with "--target_board=unix'{-m32/-mpowerpc64}'" will have
>> noisy warnings on ppc64-linux. If warn for the case that
>> it's specified implicitly, they can just be initialized by
>> TARGET_DEFAULT (like -m32 on ppc64-linux) or set from the
>> given cpu mask, we have to special case them and not to warn.
>> As Segher's latest comment, I decide not to warn them and
>> keep it consistent with before.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regress-tested on:
>> - powerpc64-linux-gnu P7 and P8 {-m64,-m32}
>> - powerpc64le-linux-gnu P9 and P10
>> - powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0 {-maix64,-maix32}
>>
>> Hi Iain, could you help to test this new patch on darwin
>> again? Thanks in advance!
>
> I kicked off a bootstrap - and 'check-gcc-c' .. if all goes well, there will
> be an
> answer in ≈ 7hours. If something fails, the answer will be sooner ;)
bootstrapped and tested on powerpc-darwin9, with default CPU configuration.
I have not yet tried tuning or cpu configure options.
testresults compare “nominal" against a recent set (another day elapsed time
would be needed for a proper regtest).
thanks
Iain
