On 3/26/25 3:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> In any case, this flag feels like a tuning decision rather than hard
> ISA requirement and I see no problems why we couldn't inline
> even explicit -msave-toc-indirect function into -mno-save-toc-indirect
> or vice versa.
> We already ignore OPTION_MASK_P{8,10}_FUSION which are also more
> like tuning flags.
I agree this is more a tuning decision and not an ISA requirement,
so we should treat -m{no-,}save-toc-indirect similarly to the
fusion options.
LGTM, but I cannot approve it.
Peter
