"Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 15:48, Stefan Kanthak <stefan.kant...@nexgo.de> wrote: >> >> "Jakub Jelinek" <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > And for -m32 it is also the last option that wins, but as with >> > many other cases just last one from certain set of options. [...] >> > The -mISA options are processed left to right after >> >> as well as BEFORE > > No. You seem to be interpreting "after" to mean "later in the command > line"
OUCH: "left" and "right" denote SPACE, not TIME! "after" follows "left to right", so it can only mean the position in the command line; if he meant "later or earlier/before" instead he should write that! > but Jakub means *at a later time*. He used "left to right" to > describe position in the command line, and "after" means "at a later > time". See above: that's his fault! > Any -march options are processed first, from left to right. After > that, there is a base arch in effect. > Then, after that, the -mISA options are processed, and take effect > relative to the base arch. > > What Jakub wrote is correct. If you try a bit harder to understand > what has been said repeatedly, you might get it. Why don't you and Jakub try to express yourself unambiguously? >> > setting base from -march=. >> >> In other words: although -march= selects a (documented sub)set of >> -mISA options, it does NEITHER reset any -mISA option set NOR any >> -mno-ISA option reset BEFORE or AFTER itself, i.e. all -m[no-]ISA >> options have precedence even if they preceed -march=. >> >> Just document that! > > That is not far from unreadable. Far in respect to space or time? Stefan
