Hi, Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603350.html BR, Kewen > on 2022/10/12 16:12, Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 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! >> >> Is it ok for trunk if darwin testing goes well? >> >
